Article: Radio Ga Ga - Pontypool

Grant Mazzy (Stephen McHattie) is a grouchy, wannabe shock jock who wishes he had Howard Stern’s numbers. The crabby presenter has been shipped out to Pontypool, Canada, to live out an audio exile of sorts for the rest of his broadcasting life. The probable reason might be Mazzy’s desire to stir the pot on small-time radio shows that wish for him to tell things straight. On the way to the isolated Pontypool radio station to host what should be another typical, sleepy morning show filled with school closures and snowy weather reports, he is jolted in his car by an unknown female standing outside. She calls something unintelligible to him before disappearing into the cold night. And so begins the lo-fi, high-concept of the movie Pontypool. A horror feature that had the marketing tagline “Shut up or die”.

To say too much about Pontypool effectively ruins its surprise. Released in 2008, amidst a boom period of Zombie horrors, the film stands out as the “thinking man’s Zombie film”. A movie which plays on the phrase “if words would kill”, Pontypool toys with the virility of speech. Its novel approach comes from the idea of a verbal virus.  Certain words in the English language have become stuck and corrupted within a victim in such a way that they quickly become mentally undone. The zombies in Pontypool aren’t “undead” but lean more towards the infected found in 28 Days Later.  The idea is far-fetched if thought about for too long. But isn’t that the way with horror movies? For some reason, we scrutinise them far more than other genres, even when they often have something interesting to say.

Tony Burgess, the author of the source novel Pontypool, purportedly hashed out the screen adaptation in 48 hours. Pontypool was also produced as a motion picture and radio play simultaneously, with the famous radio broadcast of War of the Worlds by Orson Welles utilised as the main inspiration. This is something which makes Pontypool stand out against the many Zombie iterations that have appeared since 2002. The use of airwave broadcast combined with the isolated location builds up a sense of paranoia. In the earlier half of the movie, Mazzy, his long-suffering producer Sydney (Lisa Houle), and their spirited technical assistant Laurel (Georgina Reilly) cannot be entirely sure of the audio reports that are coming back to them. One sequence involving our beloved BBC brings a sly commentary on how mainstream media condescends and twists the words of the little man. The trio know something is going on, and while they can’t be sure, they’re still more informed than the Journalist picked to report on what at the time could be a shaggy dog story. The reporter's ignorance plays well into Pontypool's idea of how poor communication can kill people. And with only the English language being contaminated, the film becomes a striking foreshadowing of how our brand of media virality is perhaps the most toxic.  

Mazzy, at the height of his grumpiness remarks that a pissed off listener is a wide-awake listener who isn’t going to change the channel. This comment, along with similar variations, can be found in all the films I’ve watched in this recent mini-series of articles. Such a statement felt damning in each entry. With each film suggesting that what a DJ says doesn't matter, as long as the audience is frothing at the mouth once it's said. In 2008, one could only dream of how bizarre and dangerous our misinformation would become. In 2025, five years after a global lockdown, Pontypool becomes an intriguing piece of foretelling fiction.

There’s something malicious about terms of endearment being a trigger for the virus, particularly as social media is becoming increasingly aggressive in almost all interactions. One only must look at how weaponised “therapy speak” and language around mental health have become to see that Pontypool was on to something.  It’s almost as if the film has cunningly forecasted that people will be quick to discard or disguise their words in favour of violence. It’s with this that Pontypool stands out as one of the stronger zombie features of the 00s. With seemingly more power to linger in the mind than the final entries that came from the lord of the genre, George A Romero. The world has never been more connected than it is now, and Pontypool’s concentrated effort in dismantling language is a disconcerting idea that penetrates more than the one found in Romero’s last affairs, which went for lofty themes but faltered in a way his first three ‘dead’ films thrived. Pontypool touches on something so primal that it doesn’t have to do too much to disturb. Film Critic Anton Bitel notes the film and its “paranoid way it portrays personal madness and social disintegration from the inside.” Many of Pontypool’s most unsettling moments stem from benign words that shift from being used to placate to becoming unknowing incubators of ailment.

All the wordplay is a good distraction from perhaps Pontypool’s weakest elements, such as the visuals. Granted, Pontypool's 2:35:1 ratio allows the type of cinematic close-ups that a grizzled character like Stephen McHattie doesn’t acquire often. The cinematography also has an ok eye for composition. However, as a film that is also a radio play, one can’t be too shocked by the lack of eye-catching imagery. There’s a crispy look to proceedings that earmarked many features of the early 00s and betrays its lower budget more than even its sparse, singular setting. Perhaps Pontypool’s biggest faux pas, though, is the entry of one Dr Mendez. A character briefly mentioned first in early radio reports, before squeezing through a window to become the type of info dump stock character that can derail proceedings. From a narrative perspective, Mendez makes sense. We see characters like this all the time, and he is the person who (should) fill in a few narrative blanks, drop off some exposition and prepare the audience for the second half of the film.  But Mendez’s appearance slows the film down considerably. Right at a time when the tension is beginning to build. Mendez is a character who’s too odd and vague to add anything of any true significance that couldn’t have been added in a far more entertaining way.

Despite this, Pontypool remains a fascinating creature. There’s something deeply primal about what’s at play in the film.  Negative reviews have focused on the absurdity of the film, yet Pontypool still works as a social metaphor for a social trauma we appear to be facing.  In Pontypool’s universe, words can kill you. And the person who may unlock the key to stopping such a pandemic is someone who needs to shut up the most. Shock Jocks like Mazzy have dinned out on their lack of accountability meal ticket. It is perhaps the most infuriating aspect of so much modern media. At the start, Mazzy is no different from the many broadcasters who utilise controversy as currency. Pontypool is daring enough to force such a character to pull his pants up and act. A pissed off listener may not change the channel, but Mazzy has the chance here to perform a far more considerable feat. Far removed from the cockamamie conspiracies that he often peddles. He can change the frequency.  Something I think many wish for when the world loses control.

Review of the year: 2008

Well 2008 is almost over and 2009 is gearing itself up to be a quite a good movie year. Hopefully I will locate more cash and go to the movies more often than I did in 2008. However with the credit crunch (read: cute word for recession) rearing it's ugly head, this seems unlikely!

However with it all said and done I still managed to check out enough movies to have a top five list of films and that's all that matters. I also have a bottom 3 list of movies that I found unbelievably dreadful. Why only three? Because films that sucked hard should not have an equal amount of reading time as films I actually enjoyed.

Also, none of the films on either list are in any sort of order as I don't see the point.

So without further ado:

BYRON'S FAVE FIVE FILMS OF THE YEAR (2008 UK CINEMA RELEASE)

No Country for Old Men:

A meditation of fate and a truly quality Neo-western

Cloverfield:

The Monster movie re-vamped with a sprinkling of Blair Witch for the youtube generation.



There Will Be Blood:

PTA's most mature offering to date with a power house performance by Daniel Day Lewis

The Dark Knight:

There's no introduction needed. You knew this would show up somewhere.




Juno:
A sweet and simple coming of age film, which suddenly became a figure of hate for being successful.

THE WORST FILMS I WATCHED THIS YEAR (UK CINEMA RELEASE 2008):

Jumper:

The usually reliable Doug Liman gives us; not only a bad movie but half a bad movie.




Awake:

Dreary Thriller with no surprises and Hayden Christensen AGAIN!

The Happening

Zooey and Mark running...from nothing....for 90 minutes...fucking tragic.

Roll on next year!

Review: Iron Man

Year: 2008

Director: Jon Favreau
Screenwriter: Hawk Ostby, Mark Fergus
Starring: Robert Downey Jr, Terrence Howard, Jeff Bridges, Gwyneth Paltrow

The moment I knew I enjoyed Iron was when Tony Stark (Downley jr) and Rhody (Howard) are drunk while a glitzy hip hop video is playing behind them. This will mean fuck all to many people but those who love The Wu Tang Clan will know that Ghostface Killah (my fave member joint with RZA) has the nick name Tony Stark and named one of his albums Ironman after his love of the comics. The tiny fact that they place Killah in the film shows it's sense of fun. With this said Iron man has an interesting more realistic (in a comic book/film sense) approach to it's proceedings than say The Punisher.

Directed by Jon Favreau Iron manages to balance a laid back sense of fun with an origin story that comes close to competing with Christopher Nolan's Batman's Begins. I say comes close because Iron man manages to get me interested into a story and character I've never shown any real interest in. With a character such as Batman I knew all I needed to know, I just wanted it done right. With Ironman I didn't even know which war fucked him up royally (It was Nam) let alone supporting characters.

That for me was always the first hurdle that the film had to cross and it cleared it well. Iron man as a character is charming, funny and engaging. The story also manages to be as entertaining, keeping itself from being a bland retread of other general origin stories despite having all the similar plot points. A lot of this comes from Favreau wish to give the film the same easy going feel that inhabited Doug Liman's Swingers (written by Favreau). Ironically Liman's awful Jumper could have done with the same sense of fun (as well as story structure and better acting).

I expected this from Favreau who clearly likes the idea of keeping things loose (see working with Will Farrell). Nothing about the film is rigid at all, the dialogue has an obvious amount of improvisation, the humor doesn't come across as staged, and the actors feel like the built upon their characters as opposed to just merely reading from the script. In doing this the film feels more organic, more plausible and generally more entertaining.

The masterstroke in keeping this all together is of course casting Robert Downley jr as the lead. It worries me that in the next ten years we'll see less of actors like this and more good looking cardboard cutouts. Downley jr IS iron man, just like he WAS Wayne Gale or Harry Lockhart. His performance is full of energy, charm and cheeky improv. He encapsulates the playboy feel of Stark perfectly. At times he outshines Christian Bale's Bruce Wayne but only at times. Paltrow is an interesting (although a little flat) choice for the "love interest" while Terrence Howard provides a stable performance as Stark's Army Buddy. Bridge's has a ball as Obadiah Stane and avoids the easy option of completely hamming his character up.

What Bale (and Batman Begins) has however, is that psychological edge that is not seen in many of the Marvel Comic book adaptations. You still know where you stand with Brucie and friends. Iron man's lighter balance of comic material at times skips over a very intriguing aspect of the story: The war mongering. I'm still not sure if Favreau's light touch should have glossed over the talk of weapons, wars and legacy. Stark at the beginning is the epitome of American patriotism in the beginning, before seeing what happens on the other side. The double dealing and grey areas give an interesting conflict not seen in the happy go lucky violence of The Punisher etc. But the conflict doesn't last long enough to truly question the polemic views that will always stand in America. The film clearly leans left but before "getting serious" the film gets to what everyone is watching it for......the set pieces.

The action sequences are well executed and fun. Nothing we haven't seen before but still exciting. This is mostly down to the background work done by the screenplay.
Iron man is a better start to the blockbuster movies than Jumper. It has a story with an actual conclusion and structure, much better acting (my little blurb doesn't give the actors their due at all), and has a greater sense of fun. At the end of the film I found myself looking forward to a sequel if one ever appears. The likelihood of this looks good due to the box office figures so here's hoping the the sequel will expand on the good work done here.

Review: In Bruges

Year: 2008
Director: Martin McDonagh
Screenwriter: Martin McDonagh
Cast: Colin Farrell, Brendan Gleeson, Ralph Fiennes, Clémence Poésy, Jordan Prentice, Thekla Reuten

Three great central performances, captured in a beautiful city (trust me I've been) combined with a deviously dark wit and a well paced story (until some messy plot issues at the end) make up Martin McDonagh's In Bruges. The film took me by surprise owing more to No Country for old men than say Lock Stock or Snatch. McDonagh's film demonstrates that the bad guys become even more interesting when they have a crisis of fate.

After an a botched assassination hit, Ray (Farrell) has headed to Bruges with a fellow hitman named Ken, to hide out. The grumpy Ray ponders his fate while the gentler Ken spends his time sightseeing and tiring to reassure his younger assassin that everything will be fine. Unfortunately Harry (Fiennes), the boss that ordered the hit has other ideas.

While No Country for Old Men took an old school Mcguffin and turn that aspect of plot into a grand epic revisionist western. In Burges is more introspective keeping the focus purely on it's leads. When the film wasn't hitting me with punchy dialogue and one liners, there are brief moments of poignancy that stayed with me longer than the comedy. McDonagh develops his characters well, allowing them to stew in their situation bring forth characteristics slowly and allowing the chance for the characters to evolve into well rounded individuals. Ray and Ken feel like an Irish odd couple during the first half of the film, the banter comes in thick and fast, and you get to know them as they evolve and shift roles. At one point the two feel like an old married couple, two scenes later a spoilt brat and mother. The interaction is feels almost like a buddy cop movie, In Bruges comes across as Lethal Weapon for the other side.

The two leads give off two very different but effective performances. Farrell, in his most mature performance in ages, is brilliant. His comic timing and visual tics are hilairious and his acting range throughout the film is broad and engaging throughout. Glesson on the other hand uses his screen prescene to mass effect. His performance is gentle and fatherly, two things he's done before with ease but not with this much resonance. It's great to watch, as the two role complement each other so well it's constantly engrossing. You can't wait to see what the next guy is going to say next.

To round it off we are given brute energy of Ralph Fiennes as a fiendishly loutish cherry on top of the main duo. Fiennes role is like a tornado, with chaos happening everywhere he goes. Be it at home with the family (delightfully awkward Xmas moment) or when he finally appears in Bruges. Not only has he some of the best lines in the movie, his delivery gives them more punch and humor. A character that can easily be forgotten is given a wonderfully animated touch. The support range from the thankless (Clemence Poesy) to the memorable (Jordan Prentice)

The screenplay written by McDonagh (who is also theatre playwright) is one full of cracking one liners and amusing, un-p.c moments. These moments are forced to meld with moments of poignancy. However McDonagh clearly understands context, these are despicable characters and their moments of offensiveness only illustrate and highlight their phobias and isolation (expect for Fiennes who is clearly just an 'orrible cunt). The story overdoes it's ending, in particular a death which goes on for too long and ends with a very unconvincing plot moment. But up until that point the story moves at a steady pace and redeems itself after a few missteps.

In Burges doesn't have massive set pieces or the now familiar traits of the new wave Brit gangland movies. Howevcr its story is ten times stronger then most of the Guy Richie imitators/nick love films and for the most part the film is laugh out loud funny. I was almost embarrassed with how loud I laughed at some of the jokes. To add to this In Burge reminded me of how much I love small films when I get the chance to see them. The general jaded feel that can happen with some of Hollywood's bigger movies is lost when going into something like this. The laughs come naturally, the drama works well and the story is fulfilling. While it may not be remembered in those big books of blockbusting box office stats, In Burge is more likely to remain in the memory of those who were lucky to see it.

Review: Drillbit Taylor

Year: 2008
Director: Steven Brill
Screenwriters: Kristofor Brown, Seth Rogen
Starring: Owen Wilson, Leslie Mann, Nate Hartley, Troy Gentile, David Dorfman, Alex Frost

Frat Pack everywhere! It appears that U.S Mainstream Comedy Cinema won't allow anyone else into their movies. No Seth Rogan? Then no way. No Vince Vaughan? Try again sucker. No Judd Apatow? Denied! It seems that if you do not have least one of these people in your movies then it's not allowed to make money. Ok so that's not true. However as long as these Frat Pack films break even at least, you ain't seen the last of these guys.

Drillbit Taylor is yet another film produced by Apatow productions. Taking liberally from the film My Bodyguard (1980) and with certain elements being thought up by the master of a thousand childhoods (John Hughes under his Edmond Dantes pseudonym); DT is a sweet (but not too slushy) film about a group of nerds who have just entered high school. They decide to hire a hobo as a personal bodyguard to defend them from a couple of bullies, with amusing results. There's not much else to the films plot, but that's not the point. It seems like a touching (and amusing) way to aim the Apatow humor at a younger audience.

For the most part, it works I guess. As a fan of Owen Wilson I found most of the movie enjoyable. Wilson's lazy Texan drawl and offbeat charm keep the film moving, elevating a below mediocre family film to a watchable one. Don't be expecting to laugh as loud as in Superbad or The Wedding Crashers (if you enjoyed those movies) as the dialogue is not nearly as quotable and the set pieces aren't as nearly as outrageous. In fact the more OTT a frat pack production is the stronger the film is as a whole. Drillbit misses the manic performances from some of the other frat members. It is in Drillbit you discover how strong the comic talents of the frat pack as it is sorely missing here. Many of the jokes, one could say are a little off. Mostly because of the performances (and dodgy editing). In the hands of others I would have laughed a lot louder than I did. Not to say that I didn't laugh, however I doubt this will have the same effect as when I watched Superbad again the other day.

Wilson is of course the strongest performance, his timing is still extremely strong and he can still make me laugh at dialogue that other actors couldn't. Leslie Mann (an underrated comic actress) also shines in the small amount of screen time she's in. The chemistry between herself and Wilson is likable, easy going and most important amusing. A stronger story could have been made with the two adult characters than the "yoof" of the film. Not to say that the younger guys in the film are terrible...just awkward and not in a Micheal Cera way. The lead trio just stand out unnaturally at times, looking more geeky and standing out more than they should.

This doesn't help the slim plot which drags a hell of a lot considering that these kids are supposed to carry the film until the end. Wilson may be the star of the film but the kids are the protagonists and while every so often they come off with gems in various moments of the film, they fade into the background far more than they should. If this is considered a spiritual predecessor to Superbad it needed kids who could compared to the talents and timing of Cera and Hill.

Director Steven Brill may have agreed on the casting due to the physical attributes of the kids but he could have at least spent more time working on the timing of the three. I have labelled them quite harshly, however I have only gone by how well the film has labelled them; Troy Gentile is the fat one, Nate Hartley is the skinny one and David Dorfman is the weedy one. They act towards their one characteristic and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't and while Superbad take three archetypes and gives them a fresh feel and makes them lovable (and quotable). Drillbit has three similar stereotypes and does nothing with them.

Brill, director of the awful Without a paddle creates a film which is a damn sight better than that piece of junk in that it is actually funny in places. It has set pieces that not only crack smiles but with bring out the odd guffaw. The film is a watchable one but one without freshness. It's light but forgettable . With this said however, it's worth a renting for not only Wilson and Mann but a slightly twisted performance from head bully played by Alex Frost who some may remember at Alex from Gus Van Sant's marvellous/boring (either/or) Elephant.

Review: Walk Hard: The Dewy Cox Story

• Year: 2008
• Director: Jake Kasdan
• Screenwriters: Jake Kasdan, Judd Apatow
• Starring: John C Riley

OK. It's another geeky, low brow, comedy which looks destined to reach some sort of cult status (which doesn't take much with some things these days). However Walk Hard is an amusing way to spend 90 minutes.

Walk Hard: The Dewy Cox Story tells the story of Dewy Cox (John C Riley) a musician who needs to overcome his demons and adversities in order to become the musician legend that we "now know".

Walk Hard is a crafty parody of Ray/walk the line/et all which works when it hits the notes of the recent Oscar winners. ripping on their contrived story moments and cliched tales of redemption. Walk hard doesn't mean to rip into Ray Charles and Johnny cash, however it is saying the films that have been made in their memory are on the borderline between uplifting Oscar fanfare and farcical comedy, made just in time to brown nose for the Oscars.

Are films like Ray bad movies? No but they all follow the same patten, even down to the bad wife/good wife and the ironic "Greek chorus" in which every song of the lead character sings matches the action that came before it. Walk Hard exploits these cliches but never means to upset the music that inspired it (although a certain Beatles cameo may cross a line).

Walk Hard follows many of the films with Apatows name somewhere on the credits. The story is heart felt and the comedy is crude. The combination gels well and is reminiscent of the Farrelly Brothers of old. Walk Hard doesn't hit as many laugh out load targets as Superbad and isn't as sweet as the 40 Year Old Virgin but has more than enough jokes for a titter and just enough story to keep the pace (although it does run out of stream near the end).

John C Riley has always been quite amusing, even in his more "serious" roles of Hard Eight and Boogie Nights. He was the next best thing in Chicago (after Zeta Jones) and has a great presence throughout. He's not as "zany" as Will Farrell or (enter verb here) as Steve Carrell but as an odd mixture of the two that works well with the material.

The soundtrack is catchy, the jokes are more hit than miss and Riley shows that he can carry not only a movie but a COMEDY quite well. Props go out to the amusing cameos (won't spoil them) and Cox's Band (Lovin that Tim Meadows).

If Judd Apatow is anywhere on the credits (usually as Producer), it's almost definitely going to make me laugh. as a writer and producer Apatow has a knack of having his name on genuinely amusingly cult hits. This isn't as quotable as the other films in Apatow's Production Cannon (Once again Superbad) but it's worth watching all the same.

Review: I Am Legend

• Year: 2008
• Director: Francis Lawrence
• Screenwriters: Mark Protosevich, Akiva Goldsman
• Starring: Will Smith

Well this was my first visit to the cinema this year and it's safe to say I was not disappointed. I am Legend probably won't make it on to my top ten favorite films of the year. However Francis Lawrence's film is strong enough to hold a viewers attention. This is down to some well crafted art direction and a powerhouse performance by Will Smith.

Smith plays Neville, a lone survivor of a biological disease which has ravaged New York City. For the past three years as the lone survivor he spends his days with his pet dog Sam searching for a cure. However to quote the films tag line, the last man on earth is not alone. The disease has mutated those who didn't die, turning them into sub-human zombie-type creatures. Neville's life is divided into retaining his sanity during the day and staying alive during the night.

Remember the opening scenes of 28 Days Later? Well Lawrence wishes to take that isolation further. He almost makes it. For the most part, the film is an interesting exercise in isolation and loneliness. What helps is the utilization of silence which goes with the shots of human achievements. The film managed to freak me out a couple of times as we are shown shots of skyscrapers and monuments standing tall but standing for no one. Lawrence also manages some semi effective shock scares and creates some claustrophobic set pieces for two thirds of the film.

This leads me to the last third of the film, which isn't as terrible as so many has said but suffers from a soft climax and an almost abrupt ending. The films last third is jarring with what we've seen before and brings discomfort. Much has been said about the films CGI at the end of the film also. While not the greatest I've ever seen, it's a damn sight better than say....Charlies Angels 2: Full Throttle. It seems that the films problems (particularly at the end) hit hardest when the filmmakers make their most liberal alterations to the original novel.

With this said, plot wise the film is still engaging. I have yet to read Richard Matheson's original novel, but I'm sure there will be moments in the book I would have loved to see on the screen. What keeps the film so engaging however is the charm and screen presence of Will Smith. His role in the film is one of his strongest since Ali (yep seven years ago). Smith manages to take the role beyond that of a regular action hero and adds a small amount of pathos to the film. The supporting characters are nothing to yell about as all the characters apart from Neville are mostly cameos, save for the brilliant animal performance from Abby the dog who plays Sam.

I am Legend for the most part is an entertaining film which slowly begins to run out of stream before the climax. Which is a shame when you release that Smith's talent and star potential could have been used to greater effect in such a film.

THE UPCOMING YEAR

Sorry that my blog has been very intermittent but all that's about to change.

2008 is a new year and I will put more articles up, maybe a few small reviews, charts etc.

The way way to start bulking up my blog is a quick look at the upcoming movies that I'm wanting to see as it's the beginning of the year. Without further ado lets have a look at some of the movies that I can't wait to see this year!*



Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull:

After years in development hell, Lucas and Spielberg are now in post production of their forth installment of the Indiana saga and I can't wait to see what the cast and crew come up with.

Ford is once again donning the Fedora, Karen Allen is coming back as Indy's old flame, and the filmmakers have decided to go back to basics with the action. No CGI here folks, only stunt men half killing themselves for our entertainment.

The addition of Shia LaBeouf and Cate Blanchett in the cast are also much welcomed in Camp Byron. Blanchett is a strong actress who deserves to be in a fun movie (Hot Fuzz cameo excluded) after spending her time in some heavy affair. LaBeouf was the best thing about Transformers and has shown at a young age he has more than enough charm and comic timing to keep up with such a huge project.

Hopefully Ford's age won't be a problem and David Koepp's script is more Raiders of the Lost Ark than Death Becomes Her.


Jumper

I am a big fan of Doug Limans films, even Mr and Mrs Smith, so I'm quite intrigued on how this film will turn out. Now is the time for Hayden Christensen to show that he can actually carry a movie well (sorry haven't seen Shattered Glass yet). The cast is an interesting mix that could work and Samuel L Jackson might not phone in a performance this time.
Liman is a director who has not only made successful films but made them with a bit of talent also. It's hard to believe this guy made the cult comedy Swingers before starting off the intensely popular Bourne franchise. He has a great ability to adapt to whatever material with ease and with David S Goyer (Batman Begins) and Jim Uhls (Fight Club) helming the script this could be a fun two hours.

No Country For Old Men

It's the fucking Coens! Need I say more? Yes? Well ok then, it's the Coens with a flick that's doing well in critical praise as well as award nominations. While many look at Quintin Tarantino as a director who makes films only for himself, you only have to pick one or two titles from the Coen filmography to see that Ethan and Joel have always done things THEIR way. This has lead to some dubious recent outings which i won't mention (I will say Alec Guinness may have turned in his grave), however their portfolio is a eclectic mix of great entertainment and this looks like no exception.

Wanted

While all the subtely of the comics will probably be lost, Wanted still looks like it could be a good laugh. Timur Bekmambetov is an action director I can really get behind. Despite being a director that places style over substance, Bekmambetov can still tell a better story than say I don't know.......Micheal Bay. Bekmambetov has also grabbed himself a cast which not only combines strong character acting (Terrance Stamp, Morgan Freedman) but box office draw as well (Angelina Jolie). The film is also taking a bit of a risk with the lead. James McAvoy is not only making a name for himself in kiddy blockbuster affair (Narnia) but in period drama Oscar Bait (Atonement). It will be interesting to see the actor adapt to something such as this. The trailer has the kind of crazy action which made the Night Watch franchise so watchable and while it will upset every comic nerd from here to Ohio, it could become a cult classic to others who know nothing about it.


Sweeney Todd

I am not the biggest Burton fan, however I'm oddly curious about his next endeavour. I love violent revenge movies, Depp's a great actor and Burton's style is prefect for the material at hand. Sweeney Todd is coming over from America with high praise from the likes of Roger Ebert (like him or not) and has hit the imdb's top 250 films list extremely quickly (most likely Burton fans rating it ten for the sake of it).

The art direction looks top notch (Typical Burton) and supposedly Depp and Bonhiem Carter can sing. One thing that bothers me however is Depp's preformance. Granted I haven't seen the film yet but in watching the trailer, Depp acts like he's Jack Sparrow with a razor. This wouldn't be such a bad thing if I hadn't had grown so tired of the Keith Richards impression after three movies.

Issues aside the film looks delectably, twisted and evil. The film might keep me distanced from any emotional response (I get that a lot with Burton) but the films tale of madness and murder should keep me going for the duration.

Cloverfield

I've typed some insane ramblings about this little ditty on my site already but it's worth mentioning again. Matt Reeves film looks like it could be one of the surprises of the year. Cloverfield look like it's going to take a few risks such as unknown actors and a release date during Hollywood down time. However, net hype has kept interest ticking over and unlike crap like Snakes on a Plane, Cloverfield looks like it's more going for it than a ridiculous name.

The Dark Knight

For me Batman Begins was brilliant. It was one of my favorite movies of 2005 and of recent times. To me The Dark Knight looks willing to make Begins look like a piece of shit. I checked out the trailer only recently this week (after a very entertaining marketing campaign) and I went nuts. I know many people are still quite worried about Ledger and what his portrayal of the "clown prince of crime" may be like. However, Heaths "down to earth" Psychopath is so much more creepier than the previous portrayal. In fact this joker is likened more to Nicholson's performance in The Shining than anything else. Fans always worry when actors aren't too familiar with the source material. But seeing Ledger in action during the trailer brings a lot of confront.

The trailer itself, is full of shots which should tantalizes fans, including the very intriguing destruction of the bat signal. This is the film I am waiting for the most this year and I have to wait till fucking July!!!!!!!!


There Will Be Blood

Being the P.T.A whore that I am, I cannot wait for this movie. It's been five long years since Punch Drunk Love and it's about time Mr Anderson came back with some serious cinema. As I write this, the National Society of Film Critics have picked There Will Be Blood with their Best Picture award. Once again rave reviews have been landed upon the director and one of his works. To add to this reviews have described the film as less pompous, something that has followed the director since Magnolia. With this said the trailer gives off an even more epic feel than Anderson's three hour opus.

The cast has Daniel Day Lewis leading from the front and he appears to channelling his Bill the Butcher role from Gangs of New York. Paul Dano is bringing up the rear, also garnering some optimistic approval. Day Lewis put in one of my favorite performances of 2002 in Gangs and it looks like he will be well remembered again with this performance. I have only seen Dano in The Girl Next Door (2004) which while cute wasn't anything too outstanding. In TWBB however, he looks set to expand his acting wings.

Oh and the music.....is by Radioheads Johnny Greenwood! So one of my favourite directors is working with one of the musicians from one of my favorite bands. Good times methinks.

Funny Games

Now I don't understand why Micheal Hanke would want to make a shot for shot remake of his disturbing yet brilliant critique on violence. But then it's clearly made for people who don't watch subtitled movies. Fair enough I guess. However those people Hanke may be aiming for might miss the point of Hanke's scathing attack on well....themselves. I loved the original film because it's one of the most provocative and frustrating works I've ever seen. Feel shit after watching it? You should. Despite the director's arrogance at his own audience, the film has made me think twice about some of the violence I watch in films.

The remake? Well it has Tim Roth and Naomi Watts as the unfortunate souls whose idyllic trip to a holiday home ends in pain and murder. While Micheal Pitt (The Dreamers) and Brady Corbet (Mysterious Skin) are the two villains of the piece.

While I've seen the bad side of directors remaking their own films again for the American Market (I'm looking at you George Sluizer). However, with this said If done right, Hanke could garner himself some new fans.

Bond 22

Not the biggest bond fan in the world but Casino Royale was worth watching. The film's success (both critical and box office) might make a certain stupid website look even more ridiculous. Craig may not be the quintessential Bond that many would like to see. However not only he's closer to Flamings model of Bond, but his performance not only had an assured coolness but was more grounded in realism. (thank you Doug Liman and Matt Damon!)
Paul Haggis is once again behind the screenplay which should only be a good thing, the director however is an odd choice. Marc Forster is known for his touchy feely movies (Finding Neverland, Monster's Ball). Never the less the change in direction of the franchise may suit the German director.


* Please note that some of the films have already been released in the U.S. However I going with U.K releases.