REVIEW: A Touch of Love

Year: 1969

Director: Waris Hussein

Screenplay: Margaret Drabble

Starring: Sandy Dennis, Ian McKellan

 

Synopsis is here:

 

It’s always something when a film you know little about opens to be a small gem of a movie. I found A Touch of Love to be a stirring affair. From a technical point of view, there’s nothing remarkable about it. At first, the film struggles to find footing for 40 minutes of its running time. Suddenly the right gear is found, and things soon fall into place.  What could have been an upscaled kitchen sink drama becomes a touching and progressive feminist feature. It grows into a film with striking emotional earnestness, something unexpected from its pedestrian beginnings.

A Touch of Love starts disconcertingly. It opens with the lead protagonist Rosamund (Sandy Dennis), discovering she’s pregnant and making a hasty decision to terminate the pregnancy. A chance arrival of close friends derails her decision. When Rosamund decides almost on a whim to keep the child, the film becomes a mosaic. It leaps back and forth in time, giving background to Rosamund, the men in her life, and her family before leading to the occasion of her pregnancy: a one-night stand with a young news presenter (Ian McKellan in his film debut). With Rosamund’s decision to have the child, the film centres on her balancing the care for her child while trying to maintain her studies at the British Museum. The film soon finds focus, with Rosamund having to navigate a strange world of systems seemingly designed to work for those not in her unique situation.

Films depicting shifting cultural attitudes like Alfie (1966) and Darling (1965) may be more dynamic in their approach. Yet Sandy Dennis’s deceptively complex performance as Rosemond makes A Touch of Love worthy of a mention alongside the more infamous swinging sixties features.  1969 must have been a strange year for the actress, finding herself as the cornerstone of two distinctive flops. Dennis’ balance of brittle and fierce tenacity is the driving force that propels both A Touch of Love and Robert Altman’s That Cold Day in the Park. The latter film has her character slip into a murderous personality disorder through an apparent repressive family backstory. In A Touch of Love, Dennis’ Rosamund is a strongwilled, feminist character study. While her exterior exhibits the similar fragility of Altman’s film, Dennis ensures that Rosamund is a rather steely unknown quantity who only seems to allow us in when she wishes. She keeps her male acquaintances at a distance, staying non-committal to them as they never seem to give her what she desires. But she's willing to stand up against their behaviour when needed.  The inner conflict makes her brief relationship with George more intriguing as his coding marks him out as a closeted homosexual. The young McKellan plays George with all the charm you expect the then-young thespian would. And his charisma helps draw tension to their sometimes-awkward interactions while further marking out the changing cultural times.

Waris Hussein was already no stranger to cultural shifts. Hussein made his name as the first director of Doctor Who, turning down a lucrative overseas job with the BBC to work at their home office. Hussein was not only one of the first non-white directors at the BBC but also a gay Indian man. It’s of little shock that he’s in sync with the sensibilities of this issue-led drama. Hussein’s film is not one for technical flair. The camera knows where it needs to be placed, with very few visuals being particularly eye-catching.  But Hussein mines the actors well for confident, dramatic moments. Perhaps the most affecting sequence involves Rosamund battling out-of-touch nurses for the right to see her daughter after a potentially life-threatening operation. The menacing about the scene is the underlying thought of nurses doing their best to keep a single mother away from her child. Simply because they abhor her unconventional lifestyle. It’s never said outright, but something between the facial exchanges with the female staff seems to make the implication. Hussein ensures A Touch of Love thrives in its dramatic moments, even within the film’s more wayward beginnings.

Amicus Productions produced A Touch of Love. The company, more known for its cheap horror films than anything else, managed to ensure that the film made a profit by selling it to distributors for more than its cost. Later, producer Max Rosenberg claimed that A Touch of Love was the best film Amicus ever made. Despite its flaws, A Touch of Love shows that it is a text more ahead of its time than perhaps the then-present-day audience gives it credit for.  What appears to be a humdrum melodrama about a repressed wallflower blooms into a fascinating insight into a woman’s right to choose her path. A Touch of Love is a deceptive moniker for such a film. It has far more than a touch to express.

A Touch of Love is available on Blu-ray from 17th March.

Dug what I write? Buy Me a Ko-fi!

Review: The Exorcist: Believer

Year: 2023

Director: David Gordon Green

Screenplay:  David Gordon Green, Peter Sattler

Starring: Leslie Odom Jr., Ann Dowd, Jennifer Nettles, Norbert Leo Butz, Lidya Jewett, and Olivia Marcum, Ellen Burstyn

Synopsis is here:

Halfway through The Exorcist: Believer, Chris McNeil (Burstyn), the mother whose 12-year-old girl Regan fell victim to demonic possession, claims that she was never allowed into the room during her daughter's possession due to the “damn patriarchy”. In the screening that I was in, the line gained an audible “right on” cheer. In wrestling, such a moment could be considered a “cheap pop”.  It is a tawdry way to incite a reaction from a crowd. The vulgarity becomes evident later in the film when a grim incident befouls Chris, a mother who had suffered so much in the original film is dismissively wasted in this new legacy sequel 50 years on. The Exorcist: Believer doesn’t give a toss about feminism. It barely cares about the women in its narrative. But it knows that simply referring is enough.

There isn't much more to say about William Friedkin’s 1973 seminal adaptation of William Peter Blatty’s novel The Exorcist that hasn’t already been said. Its reputation proceeds it. A film that now constantly tops the best horror ever lists. Its infamy entails a troubled production, rating controversies and initial mixed reactions from critics. 50 years on, the aura surrounding the film has never quelled. It remains a fascinating film which despite its intentions, has allowed the contents of the production to be argued and debated for years. Its success also allowed the studios to greenlight a multitude of sequels and prequels to mixed reactions.

The Exorcist: Believer has been delivered to audiences by David Gordon Green. A director whose filmography has a whiplash effect if you read it too fast. When he first appeared on the scene, Green was touted as the new Terrance Malick. His early films were small-town indie darlings, well-loved by the critical faculty. 2008 marked the release of the stoner comedy Pineapple Express and Green’s “loosely goosy” era with the director’s changing to television sitcoms such as the remarkable Eastbound and Down (2009) to the risibly dull Your Highness (2011). After a mix match of comedy dramas, Green found himself injecting new life into the Halloween series, creating a new trilogy which followed directly on from the 1978 classic. Despite the response for each entry falling on a sliding scale, the trilogy moved the mythology forward politically. Commentating on the festering nature of evil. The move from slasher to demonic procession feels less of a surprise now than a stoned James Franco.

The same ambition that took many by surprise in Green’s Halloween trilogy could have given The Exorcist: Believer a desperately needed shot in the arm. However, like many other entries to the franchise that proceed before it, Believer fails to grasp what made the original movie so startling 50 years ago.

The biggest gripe with Believer lies with its reliance on pandering to its inbuilt audience. Believer is totally in love with referring to the film which came before it. Visual references to Friedkin’s film litter the screen. It is a film which uses constant callbacks in a way that wants to show how much the filmmakers have liberated from the original film. Although it never really considers that the viewer could be watching that instead. In fairness Green and cinematographer Micheal Simmons do a handsome job visually, giving the film a rich and textured film from a tonal point of view. Yet the problem lies in the fact that often, there seems to be no constructive reason for its visual homages. The film opens with the familiar moment of two dogs fighting, a clear nod to the moment when Father Merrin spots two angry canines duelling in the Iraqi desert. There is no real reason to rehash this moment in Believer, other than to say: “We’ve rehashed this visual moment for The Exorcist: Believer. Originally the moment provided meaning. An amount of dread and tension felt from a priest knowing soon he would tangle with an old foe once more. Believer isn’t interested in that. It suffers from the same IP flu that infects many franchised-based films today. It wants you to tilt your head and say, “I know that reference”. But it’s not bothered in locating meaning.

Because of elements like this, it becomes quick to realise that Believer isn’t interested in anything it touches upon. Sticking close to the original film's M.O. save for cluttering scenes with needless characters, making the story about two possessed girls and giving the film a slight racial bent, Believer annoyingly suggests kernels of a more potent story but is too scared to leap. Its main thread, of a single Black father who must reclaim his faith if he is to save his child, is woefully underrepresented. The screenplay lacks the weight to match Leslie Odel Jr.’s bold performance as the unfortunate father. Believer suggests racial tension but smooths things over as quickly as it started. One plot point has a character confront the fact that he had to make a life-or-death choice between two members of his immediate family. Said choice is never truly explored in any meaningful way, as it would rather waste time having Ellen Burstyn vaguely talking about spirituality. Burstyn who cannily took the role of Chris again to get an actors scholarship program off the ground, notably rejected taking up the role again until this point. It’s easy to see why she had no interest. Burstyn is only here as a reminder of what’s been before. But at least hopefully her program will allow us to enjoy more actors like her in the future.

Even without all the legacy pandering, what we get is a rather dull possession horror which does little to scare and unsettle. It relies way too much on tropes we’ve not only seen from the first film but in various possession films since. It humourlessly goes through all the motions with little understanding of what made the original film so disturbing. Blatty’s source novel, as well as Friedkin’s film, manages to attach the weight of faith upon its despairing characters. It’s frightening because you care. It enjoys being about the eternal battle between good and evil. The Exorcist: Believer doesn’t even have the strength to take on The Pope’s Exorcist, also released this year. It hasn’t got time to care. It’s more interested in being yet another reference movie. A constant reminder you could be watching something else instead.   

Review: Barbarians

Year: 2022

Director: Charles Dorfman

Screenplay: Charles Dorfman, Statten Roeg

Starring: Catalina Sandino Moreno, Tom Cullen, Iwan Rheon, Will Kemp

Synopsis is here

There’s an element of wickedness when a Barbarians is released a few weeks after news of the U. K’s cost of living reaching the lowest point in 50 years. Charles Dorfman’s home invasion thriller deals with a country home being purchased by a toxic real estate influencer, who looks set to pass everything on to his younger screenwriter brother and his artist girlfriend. Moments of some of the self-absorbed behaviour track well. Tom Cullen who plays Lucas, the laddish older brother has an obnoxiousness that slaps you in the face like a bad smell. Lobbing words like viral and engagement around like marketing hand grenades, even as he prepares to offload this dream home to his brother, he does so with some arsey hardball negotiation. In watching the earlier scenes, the unattainable nature of what’s occurring feels all too real.    

This is a distraction to what Barbarians wishes to talk about. Taking cues from earlier films such as Straw Dogs (1971), while leaning into the more recent ‘millennial dining thrillers’ such as The Invitation (2015), You’re Next (2011), Ready or Not (2019) and Silent Night (2021) Barbarians observes the often-touched themes of primal violence under the veneer of civilized culture. The film’s early segments have Adam and Lucas sitting down to dinner to seal the deal. Joining them are their attractive, Mediterranean significant others Eva (Catalina Sandino Moreno) and Chloe (Inès Spiridonov) respectively. Their inconsequential chatter about current affairs, soon turns hostile between the two brothers, before their meal is interrupted by some imposing large men wearing animal masks. As these films go.  

Toxic Masculinity is mentioned in so many internet articles, Twitter threads and Instagram stories, that it’s starting to feel like a buzzword. However, Barbarians is invested in exploring the topic. And does so efficiently if although slightly typically. Cullen’s Lucas is unattractively fuelled by his machoism and self-absorption from the start. It’s impressive how quickly his live social media person begins to grate. As does his alpha posturing in front of the other members of the party. He’s the kind of man you just want to punch in the face. Of course, he’s also the kind of man who invites that type of aggression. Iwan Rheon, who plays the watery-eyed subordinate brother; Adam (make note of the name) is in familiar territory here. Rheon came to fame as the withdrawn arsonist Simon in the E4 Superhero show Misfits. His personality was so introverted, that his chosen power became the ability to become invisible. His role here is not much of a stretch. Playing a docile “beta” to his louder brother, his subservience is so profound that he holds no ability to stand up to anyone. Later revelations quickly have the writer swiftly emasculated with a dismissive “good boy”. Establishing his lowly position on the totem pole.

While being a relatively predictable piece, Barbarians deals in its fair share of violence and melodrama with energy and style. It’s worth noting how Charles Dorfman is more than happy to have the middle section of his film have a rather minimal amount of dialogue, allowing the visuals to tell the story over dull, expository verbiage. The film may only be a simple update on themes of emasculation and home invasion. Yet it does everything with an assertive amount of confidence. It’s a genre piece that does the basics rather well. Sometimes. That’s all you need.    

Dug what you read? Buy me a Ko-fi!

Review: Top Five

Year: 2014 (U.K release 2015)
Director: Chris Rock
Screenplay: Chris Rock
Starring: Chris Rock, Rosario Dawson, Gabrielle Union

Synopsis is here:

A smart online colleague of mine (and actual real critic) recently informed me on how much he disliked Top Five. I’ll be interested to pick his brains on his distaste for the film, as I value his cultured perspective. Despite this I can’t say I’ll agree with him on this. Chris Rock’s filmography may be an uneven one, but here, with Top Five, Rock delivers a spirited and fun feature with a performance to match.

Top Five opens, with plain white fonts on black background while Kayne West and Jay-Z’s Niggas in Paris (both musicians are also executive producers) glosses over the speakers. An odd combination, yet one that quickly displays Rock’s intentions. The titles may not display the iconic Windsor font which appears on nearly every Woody Allen film since Annie Hall (1977), but Top Five credits give the suggestion that Rock is looking to try and follow one of his influences. Once the film opens fully, the allusions to Allen become more apparent.

The city wandering and cultural pondering that inhabits Top Five as its characters travel around New York, typically suggest Woody Allen. Yet it’s hard not to consider the likes of Linklater’s Before Sunrise (1995) either. It’s Rock’s focus on hip hop music, black comedians and racial politics however, as well as alcoholism, which pushes the typical, white middle class 1st world problem dynamic to a new paradigm. We don’t often see this type of populist cinema deal with people of colour and when they do, they don’t have the backing.

What’s bothersome is that Chris Rock’s film happily shows how hard this has been missed. Rock is no Allen. He’s certainly no Linklater. But Top Five’s warm charm and great conversational chemistry between the unconventionally appealing Rock and the sorely underrated Rosario Dawson is immensely refreshing. Meanwhile the film as a whole, is set around Afro-American/Hispanic culture and never feels like it “loses” the so-called universal appeal that producers fear goes missing in “urban” features. Despite the character's professions and statues, both Rock and Dawson manage to retain the reliability of both Andre and Chelsea respectively.

The film’s weaknesses are apparent. Some of the crasser jokes hold some decent comedic timing, but feels like they’ve been shoehorned into the wrong film. Meanwhile the plot’s various threads start some efficient conflict, yet are too often left unexplored. Gabrielle Union’s celebrity wannabe is flat, but it's clear she could do more with it. More could easily be said about the film commentary about criticism and how it affects artists. Particularly at a time where the internet has pulled the discussion into sharp focus.

Despite these blemishes, Top Five continued to be delightfully entertaining throughout. Rock, whose attention is clearly more on the screenplay and performances, hires Chilean cinematographer Manuel Alberto Claro (Melancholia) to capture New York at its most vibrant. Claro bathes the scenery in glossy soft lighting which compliments the energetic qualities of the cast. The film’s knock around screenplay (possibly with large quantities of improvisation) is consistently enjoyable. So much so it cheerfully distracts the fact the clear fact that Rock is once again directing himself flirting with two of the most attractive black actresses’ currently working. Such elements should be smugger than they appear. However, Top Five is far more interested in keeping you smiling. By the way: Pharaoh Monche, Vast Air, Biggie, Jay-Z… and Q-Tip. Subject to change.

Review: Godzilla

Year: 2014
Director: Gareth Edwards
Screenplay: Max Borenstein
Starring: Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Ken Watanabe, Elizabeth Olsen, Juliette Binoche, Sally Hawkins, David Strathairn, Bryan Cranston

Synopsis is here

I found myself grappling with my thoughts on this latest rendition Godzilla since my viewing last Friday. I had more than enough time to piece a review together since then, but I wanted to figure out if my thoughts of the film would develop into something more than just "fine". As a big fan of Edwards last feature; Monsters (2010), I had some high hopes for whatever project would come the young director's way and while a $100millon plus blockbuster was possibly not what I was thinking, but I was more than willing to see what he would do with Japan's iconic, atomic beast.

Edward's Godzilla feels less like Roland Emmerich's flat 1998 adaptation of the material, yet it struggles to bring across the gloomy, tragic tone of the 1954 original. The film stumbles somewhere along the middle of both. Doing its best to project the huge amount of money spent on it and fumbling a plot that has a refreshing change of pace in comparison with other blockbusters, in terms of structure and themes, yet no interesting human characters to engage with. Edward's film excels when Godzilla makes its appearances in the film, but most of the films downtime is spent with people that hold no real interest. Edwards clearly likes to display the idea that when such creatures appear on earth, we are of little significance, and I enjoy how his displays this in such moments as the glorious skydiving set piece. If we are to spend so much time with its human characters, however, I would not mind some emotional connection.

The 1954 original film cleverly used the Japan as a collective source of character, utilizing isolating moments of terror and despair and unifying them as an emotionally connective tissue. There is no main character because Japan is the main character. 2014's Godzilla decides to lump its heavy weight upon Aaron Taylor Johnson, whose board shoulders aren't strong enough to carry it. Johnson plays the role barrel chested but cardboard faced. Other actors I expected more from (Olsen, Binoche, and Hawkins) are either bland info-dumping mouth pieces are unfortunately shoved into either dull homely or info-dump characters. This is the second film to place a female character within a uniform of a nurse and believe that's enough to sell the idea of the character (see also The Amazing Spiderman 2). Bryan Cranston tries hard to inject the kind of energy we expect from such a film, as yet another pent-up father figure, while Ken Watanabe is allowed inform us of the nature of the beast, yet the amount of screen time they are given to place any gravitas, is limited. A strong international cast is wasted, while we wait for what we actually came for.

Edward does deliver when it comes to the film's scale. The film generally feels large. We witness helicopters appear as mere specks on landscapes of foliage. Watching landscape shots of soldiers against the sheer size of the mutated monster only amplifies the feelings of insignificance of the human species as the rampage of the creatures takes place. Edwards also nods back to his first feature (as well the Godzilla franchise) with a solid sense of wit. Meanwhile cinematographer Seamus McGarvey's beautifully ashen cinematography and Alexandre Desplat winking score sets the right tone.

Godzilla 2014 tries hard to juggle a few pies in the air and only manages to a few of them up. Edward's film is making a summer blockbuster with very particular B-movie-like undertones. But while the original film smartly captures a country's pain with a sense of melancholy, Godzilla fumbles its human story with unengaging characters. The film really hits its stride when it all kicks off, but I would happily be calling the film great if the film's quieter moments had anything approaching the subtly affecting Mexican vigil scene found in Monsters. Godzilla is best viewed for its splashes of spectacle only.

Review: The Quiet Ones

Year: 2014
Director: John Progue
Screenplay: Craig Rosenberg, John Pogue, Oren Moverman, Tom de Ville
Starring: Jared Harris, Sam Claflin, Olivia Cooke, Erin Richards

Synopsis is here:

For the first time in a quite a while, I found myself watching a film at the cinema with someone else. Despite the fact I gave my companion ample time to get ready for an mid afternoon screening of The Quiet Ones, she still took forever to get to the cinema. Even though her schedule became clear for her to watch the movie. I write this for the simple fact that I found more dramatic tension in whether or not my friend could make the screening, than I did in The Quiet Ones.

The film is a rather typical horror which, like many of its fellow features, is very quick to tell you how inspired by true events it is. The Quiet Ones is also one of those films that are far more interested in its multitude of jump scares over any sort of sufficient feeling of dread. By the time the first jump came about, I knew I was going to be in for a rather tepid time.

Despite its large spooky house setting and tight close ups, The Quite Ones does very little to fill you with any lingering fear. The film swaps from old 70’s 16mm film format to more crisp modern cinematography often but does little to make such switches beneficial. The characters are frustratingly archetypical and spread far too thinly for the audience to give any worthwhile concern. Jared Harris and Olivia Cooke have a lot enthusiasm but are trapped within their roles of boring sceptic and possessed waif respectively. Harris’ Professor Coupland is more disheartening due to the plain ignorance of the character as the film goes on. The films stilted screenplay doesn’t help things, repetitively giving us bump in the night moments the character has to reject without conviction.

As a story about an English haunting, the theme of repression are bound, with Erin Richards’ tarty sex-pot pitting herself against the repressed Brunette rival in Cooke’s Jane Harper early on. Unfortunately Richards’ alluring outfits are more eye-catching than any of the dynamic that occurs throughout the film.  The British (and the film’s producers, Hammer) have a long standing tradition in providing chilling tales, but this ramshackle production would do better in staying silent.

Review: Noah

Year: 2014

Director: Darren Aronosfsky 

Screenplay: Darren Aronofsky, Ari Handel

Starring: Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Ray Winstone, Emma Watson, Anthony Hopkins, Logan Lerman

Synopsis is IN THE BIBLE

I found Noah to be a dreary experience. Many fellow writers managed to gain something out of its more unhinged qualities; I needed more than the films deranged tone to keep my interest levels up. I do not consider it bonkers because it’s a religious text. For instance, the screenplay wisely eliminates problematic elements such as Noah’s age (in the Bible he nears 1000 at time of death) to level things out slightly. The film however, suffers from a troublesome tone throughout which is always hard to ground. Noah as a whole feels fantasy-lite, almost placing it in the same realm as Aronofsky’s equally barmy, but far more entertaining Black Swan.

Aronofsky has stated that Russell Crowe was cast to give the film the type of grounding a film such as this sorely needs. Crowe struggles with this and not due to his talents. This is a screenplay that flies into full The Shining mode during the last act of the film. Aronofsky’s adaptation of the text is clearly written with the audience in mind. Here Noah’s inner conflict stems from how he interprets his Lord’s message. If God (named The Creator in the film) wishes to end the wicked world of Man, does that include Noah and his kin?  Like Aronofsky’s earlier works (Pi, Black Swan, Requim for a Dream) Noah is a film where the protagonist’s obsessions slowly get the better of them. It certainly fits into Aronofsky’s wheelhouse thematically. It is just far too tough to get past the film’s meandering pace, awkward time lapses and outlandish skylines. Along with its bizarre rock monster/Angels that feel like they’ve wandered off a Tolkin text.

Noah simply does not have what made The Passion of the Christ so strangely compelling. No matter how you feel about Mel Gibson and his project, his visualisation of the message (even if it’s just guilt tripping you into his faith) is stronger than what we see here. The visions expressed by the likes of Judas had more conviction and the films characters felt more authentic. To quote Kayne; I’m not here to convert atheists into believers. Nor am I siding with those with faith, looking for a fully accurate piece devoted to the original text. Noah shows its weaknesses however, not only by having Anthony Hopkins come across as an older version of Woody Harrelson character in 2012, or by the amusing miscasting of Ray Winstone. No, Noah feels it’s the right decision to under develop the role of Jennifer Connelly’s Naamah. Connelly’s soft, subtle performance is the kind of grounding Noah needs in spades. The film’s cautious view of such a character makes sure that Noah remains a cult drinking game footnote more than anything else.  

Review: The Expendables

Year: 2010
Director: Silvester Stallone
Screenplay: Silvester Stallone
Starring: Silvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Terry Crews, Mickey Rourke, Randy Couture, Eric Roberts, David Zayas, Stone Cold Steve Austin.

Synopsis is here

I'm getting the sneaky suspicion that a few Hollywood players are worried about their relevance.

After Tom Cruise's lousy piece of film (Knight and Day) comes Silvester Stallone's last hurrah for the 80's action movie: The Expendables, A surprisingly mediocre vanity project, which at times manages to garner moments of entertainment but for the most part is a uninspired Merc on a mission flick that has been not only been done twice already this year (The Losers, The A-Team), but fails to even better them. For all it's big names and claims, ultimate action flick this is not.

Of course, my ramblings will be drowned out with yells off "just switch your brain off" and other cliches as well worn as the ones in the film, but the problem is, if you want this to be THE throwback to those past glories, you should at least remember why they were good in the first place. What we have here is a reaches the heights of the weaker comic book movies that saturated the market let alone the meathead flicks of the past.

You see my main problem with this film is not it's incoherent story or bad dialogue (you expect it in something like this) but it's the fact that Stallone as a director almost betrays those action flicks of old. The Expendables is more concerned about close ups of it's craggy stars and MTV editing that would make Micheal Bay blush than anything else. In a film where you have Dolph Lungdren and Jet Li scraping you should really be able to see the fight.

Unfortunately most of the action scenes within in the film are not only haphazardly edited but shot without a sense of place or direction. I'm all for big bombastic set pieces but Stallone is pretty aimless when it comes to capturing them on film. The films final assault is the best example of this with much of the scene accumulating as more of a series of randomized shots than an actually constructive action sequence. Another worrying issue of the action (as well as the horrible reliance of digital blood and fire) is how "normal" the actual scenes are. When compared to the OTT moments of The A-Team, The Losers and countless other movies of the same kind, The Expendables doesn't really hold up. It's good to see and action film wish to go back to the raw essence of those 80's movies, but if your going to use present-day filming techniques at least have the gaul to match present day spectacle.

Surprisingly, the movies more entertaining moments come from the energy of the cast rather than anything else. This melding of macho minds isn't Di Niro and Pacino in Heat (the meeting of Bruce, Sly and Arnie is actually pretty cringe worthy) but these guys have a do have a good comradely with each other. It's a shame however my favorite players are more bit parts than anything else as Stallone needs more screen time for his close ups.

From an acting point of view, Mickey Rouke looks like he's really enjoying his resurgence of popularity with a tight performance which makes Stallone's dodgy dialogue sound like poetry. Terry Crews is a man who clearly seems born to be in films like this, while Eric Roberts is on the right side of sleazy. These three aside, there isn't any real stand outs. Stallone is Stallone, Statham is Statham, Jet is uncomfortable with the English language and Dolph Lungdren really could be putting his Masters Degree to better use. It doesn't really matter that the performances are bad because most will be there for the action. It's just a shame that the action is so sub-par.

I didn't have massively high hopes for The Expendables but I really expected more. There's a horrible rushed feeling about the whole thing. A horrible inkling that as long as you have all the names turn up on the shoot, everything will be ok. A cliched plot, thin characterization and all the rest is a given here. In fact to some it may almost be a pass. But the lack of balls in something that's supposed to be so testosterone filled is a little embarrassing. I left the screen thinking...is that it? And wondering if John McTiernan can get his career back on track to direct the sequel.

Review: The Karate Kid

Year: 2010
Director: Harald Zwart
Screenplay: Christopher Murphey
Starring: Jaden Smith, Jackie Chan, Taraji P. Henson


It's a remake, made well and truly on commerce alone and suffers from one of the worst cases of nepotism since Francis Ford Coppola decided that his daughter could act. This updated version of the 1984 hit, plays the same notes as the original film, and will most likely entertain those who have never heard of being "the best around". There will be many however, who won't be able to get past the obvious issues the film has. It's understandable but it's doesn't make the film as terrible as many supporters of the original film will probably make it sound.

The idea that 11-12 year old kids are martial art gods, who fall in love like those teenagers do is a cute idea in theory I guess, but a difficult one to put in practice. Even in the fictional world of Hollywood flicks, there has to be an air of plausibility that rings slightly true. TKK 2010 struggles with this believability for the simple reason that while the world feels quite real, the characters don't. The original film had Ralph Macchio's Daniel at the perfect age for what he experiences. By taking away those extra years, the movie falters in not only it's fight scenes (Jackie Chan beating on pre-teens anyone?) but from an emotional aspect. The relationship which blossoms between the two lead pre-teens would have much stronger if they just a little older. This really hits home during an scene in an arcade where the love interest Meiying (Wenwen Han) performs a dance routine which tries to be cute but as a westernized sexuality about it that just feels a tad wrong.

The film also suffers from an uneven performance by it's lead. Jaden Smith is clearly his fathers son and there's clearly an air of charm about him that shines through at the best of times. unfortunately this is clouded by awkward pauses, odd glances and general inexperience. It's refreshing to see a child actor who isn't older than their years (see early Dakota Fanning) but it is frustrating to see someone who hasn't got the emotional range fight against the material. Once again...a couple of years in the future and who know.

This however is just two strands of a film which is stronger than I gave it credit for. The film doesn't stray too far from the original feature in terms of basic structure (a good thing for those who love an underdog story) and the idea of setting the film outside of the the U.S is a nice touch which helps enhance the feeling of alienation that the young Dre feels. It also provides an a refreshing look at race relations. The film doesn't feel the need to shoehorn Caucasian characters within the film to "reach an audience" nor does it feel like an "urban" movie (Pop locking and hip-hop soundtrack aside). The film is confident that it's story will win people over, rather than the colour of the actors skin. There's certain elements that definitely helped (Brand name, Jackie Chan, Fresh Prince producing) but to be honest these aspects really do melt away and the film does enough to stand on it's own two feet. Other strong points include the cast around Jaden Smith help a lot during weaker moments and that the film is not only colorful and bright but zips along at a nice pace. For a family film that is nearing two and a half hours long, I certainly didn't feel it.

The films real revelation for however, is Jackie Chan as maintenance man Mr Hun . An actor known more for his comedic displays gives his best western film performance to date. His best scene (also the films strongest), involves a tearful monologue involving an accident with his character family. Like a few of his films of the past decade, it seems to be clear to Chan he can now take that energy from his infamous fight scenes (which must be becoming increasingly difficult with age) and direct it elsewhere. If this is the result, then Chan may have a beautiful renaissance as a "serious" actor.

It has enough 80's charm (read cheese) who remain watchable, and more than enough of it's own moments to not cheapen any memories of the original film. Fun to watch, well put together fight choreography and a heart in the right place. It is clear that like I said, the film is clearly based on brand recognition* and commerce over everything. However in watching those small moments and taking in the little aspects of charm the film as, you can see at least this one is trying.


*Note: It is called The Karate Kid in America clearly because it's a remake and people know the name. However, throughout the film they preform Kung Fu. A part of me really does believe it could have been called the Kung Fu Kid and survived commercially.

Review: Shutter Island

Year: 2010
Director: Martin Scorsese
Screenplay: Laeta Kalogridis
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Mark Ruffalo, Sir Ben Kingsley, Max Von Sydrow, Michelle Williams

Plot Synopsis is here

Note: This review has been written to try and avoid spoilers and it should give anything in the story away. However inquisitive readers may put what they've seen from the trailer, other sites and what I mention in the early paragraphs and put somethings together. You have been warned.

Shutter Island is a movie I will need to see again. One because I loved it, and two because I found the screenplay (Night Watch's Laeta Kalogridis), so neatly placed together, working so well with Scorsese graceful direction makes sure that at the end of the film, it has kept the same air of logical ambiguity that we entered.

We shouldn't look at this film for absolute reasoning. The films mood (Likened by Roger Ebert to a haunted house movie), atmosphere and themes forbid it. It's obvious from the violent rainstorm outside, the spiraling staircases and maze like quality of certain areas of the Shutter Island mental hospital, that the film takes place within the recesses of the mind. Of course we all know that when we think, normally the thoughts, flash backs and/or otherwise are always fractured, they never appear in true clarity.

With this knowledge in tow, I fully appreciated the films dream logic. Like A Nightmare on Elm street, Scorsese films the piece in such a way that you never truly know which scenes are real and which ones are not. It revels in surreality almost to the point where at the end, where what could easily have been a terrible plot hole in an inferior movie, could merely be askew judgment from a twisted perspective. Many have felt that the trailer, that has been played for so long due to the unfortunate delay of the movie may give away too much. But no, Shutter Island keeps it's cards close to it's chest and still manages to make a viewer second guess what they're seeing.

It's a fantastic turning of the screws from the film's screenplay that does it. Detectors have stated that the script is patchy. I disagree. It is purposely hazy and Scorsese masterful direction play on our need for reasoning constantly. We focus on certain things because he wants us to, questioning aspects to make us forget others. A second viewing of this film will reveal more to us because our prospective will have changed. We will look at characters again in a different light and respond and react differently...perhaps. What makes the film so devilishly enjoyable that the second viewing may leave you in the dark or shed more light on the conclusion, such is the delicate handling of the work.

Performance wise, DiCaprio puts in what I consider to be his finest work. The boyish image is gone and a harden look has taken it's place. It's interesting that the other 50's period piece that he was in; Revolutionary Road had him overacting the role with a shouty "look at me" display which did nothing but point out what could be is flaws. DiCaprio is better in films like this where he's allowed to be a but more introspective and restrained, with flashes of emotion. He slips into the hard boiled role with ease and by the film's climax I was truly won over.

He is also surrounded by great character acting talent. It might feel like a bit of a conveyor belt of talent, rolled out to do "their little bit" but it gels so well with the narrative, that nagging feeling can easily be ignored. I could be here forever talking about Jackie Earle Haley's intensity, the wonderful chemistry Mark Ruffalo shares with DiCaprio or the pivotal scenes which have excellent moments from Patricia Clarkson and Emily Mortimer or even the uneasy clam that Sir Ben Kingsley provides....oh and Ted Lavines sleazy.....see?

It's easy to mark on the films Scorsese has been influenced by and talk about them. A bit of shock corridor here, a touch of vertigo there, a sprinkling of film noir, however as a genre piece of it's own the film works fine. It's gorgeous cinematography may have film buffs hooting and hollering but those who haven't seen the aforementioned films can enjoy this as well. The references don't feel obvious and tacked on. They are constructed to help highlight the emotions and mindset of the film not just to show the filmmakers knowledge.

Dripping with a tension and dread I haven't felt since my first viewing of Ringu, Shutter Island is a film that really did a number on me. It's a film that I can't wait to obtain on DVD, and had me considering on watching it again as soon as I can. Some have bemoaned that it's not as good as Goodfellas, Raging Bull and the like but I don't mind. This is Marty in his comfort zone, creating a genre piece that still has so much to absorb and inspire. Gushing period is over. I think I've found a film that I'll be still talking about at the end of the year.

Review: Daybreakers

Year: 2010
Director: Micheal and Peter Spierig
Screenplay: Micheal and Peter Spierig
Starring: Ethan Hawke , Sam Neill, Willam Defoe,

Synopsis is here

I will try and be as quick as possible with this because I really do not wish to waste words on this film.

Daybreakers wishes to be a snappy little genre piece but despite an intriguing twist on vampires (yes another fang flick) and some appealing visuals (including one particularly memorable night time action sequence involving exploding vamps at night), there is nothing here that you haven't seen before.

It's characters? Annoying. It's story? Predictable. It's action and scare sequences? (expect the aforementioned scene) Pedestrian Sometimes unintentionally funny. The film was a forgettable viewing that I won't care about seeing again.

It's a shame because vampires at this current moment in time really need a shot in the arm. Ethan Hawkes character is so wet I found it almost impossible to root for him. Sam Neill plays one of the most toothless capitalists I've ever seen, while Willem Defoe is in a role he could do in his sleep. A film like this could really do with something ANYTHING with some verve. Even the films talks about new ways of curing vampirism the ideas feel half baked. It doesn't help that the film has an background allegory towards immigration which is far more interesting than what's happening in the forefront.

It's only been a few hours since I've watched Daybreakers and already I have nothing else to say about it because the film is so faceless.

The Spierig brothers clearly have an astute visual style that will evolve and mature as they make more films. However I hope for their next trick they come up with something that I can "take home with me".

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!