Review: Drinking Buddies

Year: 2013

Director: Joe Swanberg

Screenplay: Joe Swanberg

Starring: Olivia Wilde, Jake Johnson, Anna Kendrick, Ron Livingstone

Synopsis is here:

It would be easy to consider Drinking Buddies as “mumblecore getting an upgrade, but that would be a little bit of a lie. It’s been just over a decade since this wave of naturalistic, low-fi films first appeared with 2002’s noble but uneven Funny Ha Ha. However the sub-genre has been making leaps and jumps with every other entry, and much of the mumblecore crew have made themselves known names. Greta Gerwig looks set to be a generation’s indie queen. Mark Duplass has been making me guffaw in The League and Lena Dunham?  Well let’s just say Girls may become one of the most important female driven series of the tweenies (is that what we call this decade?)

That said, Drinking Buddies is a large jump from my previous viewings of Swanberg’s earlier work. While you’d be hard pressed to find a U.K copy of Kissing on the Mouth, with its rawer than butcher’s meat look at sex and relationships, Drinking Buddies has the kind of gloss that will make less adventurous film fans feel right at home. The film also features a cast that just wouldn't be seen in Swanberg’s earlier films. Credit should go to Swanberg’s prolific work and plaudits here, as now his work can commend stronger, more accomplished actors for his work (Gerwig aside of course).

The cleaner aesthetic and cast are certainly a shock for a viewer who knows Swanberg for his smaller works and not necessarily for the better. Thematically Drinking Buddies is still the kind of white first world problems I find myself oddly attached to (Yet, I’m cold to Richard Curtis...go figure), but the jump from the rugged, D.I.Y feel, to something more mainstream is a large jump and a jarring one. Not everyone will have this issue, but what excited me so often about the mumblecore movement was how the messiness of the characters lives seemed mirrored within the aesthetic. The upgrade in style does not mesh as well as before. It may just be me, but something feels missing from the piece and I really believe it’s this. Then again my favourites of the sub-genre (In Search of a Midnight Kiss, Medicine for Melancholy) have a keener visual eye than perhaps Swanberg, who appears focused on the improv work between the characters.

Like many of the mumblecore movies I’ve seen, I do enjoy how characters interact and develop. The female characters in particular. While the men are often the schluby, slacker types that we often find everywhere in romantic media these days (note the perfectly cast Jake Johnson from New Girl), the women hold a sense of control and emotion that I always find appealing. They’re smart but not always right, emotional but not needlessly hysterical. I find that if I take a dislike to girls like Olivia Wilde’s Kate (the best performance I’ve viewed from the actress), it’s never for long and it’s mostly because they truly have an amount of control that doesn’t feel held by what we expect a female character should do.  Swanberg’s choice on a heavily improvised screenplay is effective. Emotional moments turn on a sixpence, even if not as strong as previously seen.  

Drinking Buddies does work, despite the shellshock of its more commercial aspects. There’s no doubt that there is something taken away from before and that the same roughness that had me drawn to these kinds of films is missed. It’s clear from the films affectionate look at fragile foundations of bosom buddies, that this is not Swanberg “selling out” in the conventional sense. Yet give me a store brought video camera and a few actors that don’t nail there scenes as well as Anna Kendrick does, and I feel there would be something even stronger. 

Review: I Give It a Year

Year: 2013

Director: Dan Mazer

Screenplay: Dan Mazer

Starring: Rafe Spall, Stephen Merchant, Rose Byrne, Anna Farris, Simon Baker

Synopsis is here

Within fifteen minutes of screentime; the romantic comedy I give it a year had shown its hand.  The worst thing is that it only took 2 shots for the movies narrative to fall into place. Guessing the plot so easily doesn't make me a genius. With the amount of movies most of us watch, we all know the narrative beats subconsciously. However the freshness is always in the way a director arranges his scenes and moments that will disarms us. A shot that runs a bit too long could signify a moment of perfect pitch, or give the game away. Before the end of the first act, I knew that the third would lose its fizzle.

The film doesn’t rest on its laurels. As perfunctory as things occur, the film’s climax gives us a nice spin on a romantic comedy convention that even the most well versed fans may be slightly tired of. The cast give it their all, with the likes of Stephen Merchant and Rafe Spall bring a bit of charm to their well worn archetypes. Rose Byrne does exceedingly well in playing a portraying a character I never wanted to see happy, while Anna Faris becomes near unrecognisable as the slightly drippy U.S friend who decided to go away because...well I shouldn’t say more. Not that I need to, Dan Mazer’s screenplay and direction has humorous moments, but never really steps up to hit the home run need to be anything more than a late night rental.

I don't expect to go into rom-coms expecting the filmmakers to reinvent the wheel. There is a reason why we watch these things and I give it a year does ok with most of them, I guess. But when you’re more interested in the geographical anomalies that occur in the films London Soho setting. Then clearly there's a disconnect.

My girlfriend who brought the film round, reprimanded me as I guessed correctly which way the film was heading. "Why can't you just watch it" she exclaimed. She's right, but it’s not my fault. She claims the film is underrated, I felt it was undercooked. Go figure.

Review: The Great Gatsby

Year: 2013
Director: Baz Luhrmann
Screenplay: Baz Luhrmann, Craig Pearce
Starring: Leonardo Di Caprio, Carey Mulligan, Tobey Maguire, Joel Edgerton

Synopsis is here

The Great Gatsby gracelessly bounds into screens hoping to bowl you over with its brash, over egged delivery. It's loud, proud and happily declares itself in every scene. Much like the other works of director Baz Luhrmann, Gatsby takes a headstrong, music video approach to its material. Lavish long curtains bellow in the air, cameras swoop and swoon as mass parties Charleston away to modern hip hop and RnB. 

Despite its jazz age setting, The Great Gatsby reminds me more of a 90's hip hop video more than anything. To situate F Scott Fitzgerald's classic take of the deterioration of the American dream with more modern sensibilities is understandable and considering Luhrmann's previous works, near justified. Unfortunately 2013 Gatsby; despite the modern parallels it could lean on, is less about the damnation of decadence and all about the melodrama. Much of Luhrmann's techniques do much to heighten the romantic triangle that lies within the film. However the metaphor that lies within Fitzgerald's work is quickly lost in favour of the director's own excess.

Instead of a slow intoxication of the era, we are slapped across the face with hectic hip hop editing, over arching performances and mishandled music choices. I would be the first to defend the likes of Jay-Z in a modernisation of the material. The rappers lyrics and lifestyle do a certain amount of overlapping with the jazz age wildness. However the choices placed, often jar with the party scenes we witness. Unlike previous jukebox collages put together by Luhrmann, the mixture does little to gel. 

The film is so busy submerging us with information overload (remixed modern music, crowded visuals, over exposition at every turn) that we often lose track of the characters of the piece. From Gatsby to Carraway every character is painted in broad gloss, when it's clear the more could and should be brought from them. Such motives were fine when we were given the star crossed ciphers that occupied Moulin Rouge and Romeo and Juliet, as the sources were suited. Gatsby keeps hinting that more could be done, yet Luhrmann seems more attracted to the richness of riches than anything else. 

We gain little from wide eyed straight man Tobey Magurie who delivers everything with little nuance. Mulligan fairs better, bringing a deceptive sweetness to Daisy while DiCaprio and Edgerton wrestle well with Luhrmann's outrageousness and attack it with gumption. Yet despite all its fancy posing and posturing, there's little satirical eye to the events. The film quickly descends to a simple romance that was explored stronger within Luhrmann's earlier works. The film is so busy visually that it gleefully slaps the words of the novel on the screen for no other reason than constant re-alliteration (and perhaps because it looks fancy in 3D). 

One has to look hard for moments of wry sharpness through all its grand gesturing. But witness a party scene in which Nick Carraway is introduced to the infamous Gatsby and gazes admirably at him while everyone is too busy glaring up at the fireworks. Gershwin plays in the background in what almost appears as a keen reference to Woody Allen's Manhattan (1979), a film with its own bittersweet (yet not as tragic) love triangle. It's a brief moment of intoxication. One that Gatsby could do a lot more with. 

Review: This Means War

Year: 2012
Director: McG
Screenplay: Timothy Dowling, Simon Kinberg
Starring: Reese Witherspoon, Tom Hardy, Chris Pine

Synopsis is here

This weekend for me has, unfortunately, been a disastrous double bill of recent features that have made me cry out for improvement. The twitterverse, blogosphere and forums keep crying out for original movies to be made and I fully understand where they are coming from. However, when the original films being made are as vapid, predictable and bland as this, then I will happily enjoy the retreads, rehashes and reimaginings. An American remake of a good movie, still often has decent material to back it up. This Means War is the sort of sub-par feature film; that has the writers of HBO laughing their arses off. Please note, they're not laughing because the jokes in this film are any good.

In fact not much of This Means War is any good. It is a film in which one of the CIA agents; FDR (Pine), breaks and enters the love interest, Lauren (Witherspoon) house to gain knowledge of her, obtains said knowledge by staring at it full on in the face, then promptly forgets in pretty much the next scene. Other reviews have mentioned the gross invasion of privacy in such scenes. I'm not particularly worried because it appears that these seemingly young, fit and healthy men have a shocking case of alzheimers.

It's not as if the females get a fairer shake of the rattle. While on a date with FDR, Lauren leaves his living room and Tuck (Hardy) shoots FDR with a tranquillizer dart. FDR pulls the dart out but falls to the sofa asleep. Lauren re-enters the room and is annoyed that her date is asleep because she wanted to get laid. What annoys me is that she can't see the massive dart resting beside her date. It's not hard to see, and a cut away of the dart rolling away would cover the tracks. The film plays out as if all the audience are affected by extreme ADD.

Small yet frustrating factors aside, This Means War fails for me simply because it doesn't know what to do with it's young and talented cast. Witherspoon is an actress with a Meg Ryan cuteness and a huge amount of comic potential that is wasted in scene after scene. Tom Hardy looks like he's waiting for a phone call from Nicolas Winding Refn while Chris Pine has had the charisma vaccumed right out of him. None of the dialogue sparkles for any of them and none of them are given any real time or space to show that every one of these actors can actually be quite amusing.

But then again this is a McG film, therefore all that matters is throwing as much at possible at the screen and hoping it sticks (See either Charlie's Angels film for example). The Micheal Bay-lite director once again gives us an ugly looking film (I have no idea how he gets that hideous colour scheme) that misunderstands overediting with being kinetic. Yet again the modern audience is give action sequences with little to no geography but what does it matter as long as people are seen dying and cars explode. Come to think of it, these CIA agents kill a lot of people needlessly in this sweet, harmless romantic comedy don't they? But then again such things matter in this as much as a coherent screenplay.

I think one of the worse things about This Means War, is the fact that the film constantly references films and filmmakers better than itself and it's creator. Watching McG imitate Martin Scorsese's Copacabana sequence from Goodfellas is an unfortunate tease, reminding me I could have been having more fun at home with something more entertaining.

Review: The Adjustment Bureau

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: Monsters

Year: 2010
Director: Garteh Edwards
Screenplay: Garteh Edwards
Starring: Scoot McNairy, Whitney Able

Synopsis is here

I know someone, somewhere is whining about Monsters because "there's hardly any monsters!". To that person I say read film reviews. So many people love to gripe about film reviews because "they have their own opinion" However, other than the fact that reading others view can re-enforce your own conceptions and understanding on matters (be it politics or films), they also warn about certain things like THAT TITLE I ALLEGORY AND THAT TRAILER IS LIES! Ahem, sorry.

Yes once again, the trailer of the film is used to try and sell something it's not and those looking for the next Cloverfield may find themselves a little confused. The title is one of those blatant misleads that reminds one of those old twilight zone episodes. Oh yes there are monsters....and they ain't who you think! etc. Such a tactic may be seen a mile off for a disgruntled cynical cinephile; but with that said, Monsters has more to say than a slight nod to old school sci-fi. It is an interesting movie that helps continue this trend of recent sci-fi that not only utilizes it's CGI in an interesting (and cheap) way but presents an thoughtful (although slightly obvious) metaphor about how we view the alien other.

Much has said about the films cost and it's computer graphics so I'll be brief with this. The film not only looks gorgeous but just just as expensive as say War of the Worlds. Monsters cost $500,000 while Spielberg's 2005 feature cost $130 million but at times you'll be hard pressed to see how big that gulf really is. It is quite clear that Visual effects artist-cum Director Gareth Edwards knows what he's doing with CGI, with his digital shots looking better than some of the weaker efforts seen in other films. But what sets Edwards apart is he has a good hold a certain amount of cinematic language. His shots of the (rarely seen) aliens are mostly at night; not only show the capability of his CGI, But to remind us that it's things that bump in the night that still unsettle us the most. His use of location is also well considered. Like District 9 (2007), the film is enhanced by it's setting. It's not a typical urban landscape that we see constantly in films like this, but something that is also still quite alien to those who may or may not watch art-house features which delve into the central Americas more than often.

It is the location that sets up the metaphor splendidly. At a time when certain voices are highlighting that a change in ethnicity may approaching the U.K and the U.S.  It's pretty revealing that Edwards decides that it is in Mexico (where recent troubles have reared their head involving the state of Arizona) that no only the majority of the film takes place but also where we as an audience discover the the conflicting nature of these beings. I won't say any more, but think of it like Solaris (1972 & 2002) where intent to harm collides with communication.

Lets not get this ahead of ourselves however, as in some ways comparing Edwards to Tarkovskiy is extraordinarily naive. But while there films bounce around in a similar ballpark at points, Edwards is a filmmaker who is seemingly more in touch with his contemporaries than anyone else. All this talk about aliens and least we forget that this is really a romantic road movie, with it's use of setting and characters feeling more a mixture Y Tu Mama Tambien and Lost in Translation more than anything else. When Edwards' camera is focused on the smaller moments (a visit to a 400 year old church is nicely put together) these particles of culture and character work extremely well. These creatures no longer cause large impact on the world, they have been assimilated into part of it. These two leads are now finding new parts of themselves within this  background and the combination of the old and new shows the film at it's most watchable.

It's a shame that while these moments stand out Edwards shows that he is more than a little rough around the edges with other aspects. Monsters (mostly improvised) screenplay is full of forced dialogue with one unfortunate moment having the lead spell out much of underlying subtext upon viewing America's new great wall. Also as a romance I can't say that the meandering pace of the love story and the small chit chat make me believe in the central relationship much. This may be because I've been forced fed sickly sweet rom-coms since mainstream cinema gave up on trying to give us anything different, but with all that said, I didn't just truly buy it.

This is not due to the two wide eye performances of the leads with Scoot McNairy being the standout. It is his character that is given the most development and he runs with it well, with the films more emotional moments stemming from him. This is not to say that Whitney Able's role isn't any less important, it is merely more subdued. The two are more than natural in front of the camera it's just together in this vicinity the real life couple are just a tad too restrained when together.

But this doesn't distract Monsters from being a eye-opening opener. It is beautiful to look at and the film's commentary is not only topical but competently placed through out. Edwards has come out alongside Duncan Jones (Moon) as a Brit director whose view on the sci-fi aesthetic is more than the mere superficial. Whether or not or not a mainstream audience can look beyond the title is a different story.

Review: Knight and Day

Year: 2010
Director: James Mangold
Screenplay: Patrick O'Neill
Starring: Tom Cruise, Cameron Diaz, Peter Sarsgaard

I didn't expect to dislike Knight and Day as much as I did, but alas, as the film had me storming out out the cinema while it was trying desperately to be funny with a predictable post credit piece of nonsense.

Desperate is the perfect word for this. Knight and Day hopelessly struggles to be entertaining with it's homages to generally better films (see North by Northwest, Dr No). The problem is it's hard to be an entertaining movie when your nothing but a vanity project for it's leads.

I like Cameron Diaz and Tom Cruise. In fact I have a lot of time for them as stars. But this film, coming out months after the teen year old panty wetting farce that is Eclipse, almost suggest that both Diaz and Cruise are worried about their relevance. It would explain the CONSTANT close ups of the stars, which seemed to be used for the reason that the audience may be so dim witted that we'll forget who we're watching. Now I understand that audiences do enjoy looking at the beautiful people when they go to the cinema but sometimes, just sometimes they also enjoy a movie with something that resembles a story also. I know it's hard for some Hollywood executives to get that into their thick skulls...but seriously, I must ask...where the fucking screenplay to this movie?

This is a film with no real notion of plot at all. There's illusion of structure, but it is simply that, an illusion. What you get is a series of transitions, punctuated by CGI action and chase scenes and little else. Is the action exciting? No, because the over use of digital imagery gives very sequence a lack of physicality. However, when your watching a film which can't even be bothered to give it's characters actual character then how can you feel excited by the constant barrage of chaos? It is a film where I truly felt no risk at all.

Knight and Day is also (supposedly) a comedy, but it's "best joke" is a running gag involving Diaz's June being drugged...constantly. Amusing. If your looking for anything particularly witty or droll you'd be better off renting all the films Knight and Day wishes it could be. If only this film had the gull to even consider having an actual script, then they wouldn't have had to rely on improvised dialogue thought up before the days shooting. Tom Cruise ain't no Will Farrell.

Bland, Garish and not at all entertaining, Knight and Day is an uninteresting mess. That's it. No witty finishing aside, no clever last line, nothing. If the film can't be bothered to try, I don't think I should either.

Review: Twilight Saga: Eclipse

Year: 2010
Director: David Slade
Screenplay: Melissa Rosenberg
Starring: Robert Patterson, Kristen Stewart, Taylor Lautner

Tell a fan of the twilight saga you don't dig the films and they're likely to say: "You need to read the books." Now while I understand that in reading the source material, it may enhance certain aspects of story, character, themes etc, a good cinematic adaptation will still have a certain appeal. The idea of having the read the book to "get" the film is folly and there's many great movies adapted from books that I feel have bucked the trend.

Like it's predecessors, I found Eclipse to be a naff film. I understand the superficial appeal to the proceedings, the idea of having two good looking guys fighting over one girl clearly has it's charms. Especially if one is doing the James Dean thing while the other is cut and exotic. But the problem I still have with this film is quite simple. You have to like the lovers in order to care for the plight. Not only must you like them, you have to believe the love. I may have said this before about New Moon before but if the franchise wants to regurgitate the same old arguments, then I'm sure I can too.

The film consistently, nay incessantly talks about choices and decisions throughout it's running time, unfortunately it doesn't get that the choice would be interesting if the protagonists choice was difficult. The problem is, looks aside, I see no point in Bella's relationship with Edward. Eclipse tells us that being a vampire is shit, like fucking awful. It's nothing but pain, loss and longing. The vampires themselves are cold, emotionless and devoid of personality (they also have stilted dialogue and stiff acting issues) and yet Bella (an utterly selfish cow who really has it in for her loving dad) believes this is the life for her. The character of Edward doesn't help matters, he's still manipulative, possessive and mopey. In real life, this guy would have had a restraining order, in the movie world he's the main prize...such is life. With this said, Bella is an ignorant tease that doesn't seem to register (read care) that all the casualties and pain that occurs in this saga is down to her. The script may have dialogue that allude to idea that she gets it, but her blank facial expressions (great acting Miss Stewart) say otherwise. With characters so selfish and annoying maybe they are right for each other.

I've mentioned the emotional disconnect the vampires have to fans who merely point out: "they're supposed to be like that" so I ask myself why should a emotional teenage girl want this so much? Especially when the girls other choice is so perfect? The character of Jacob is a tragic one (although not as bad as the long suffering father) because not only is he perfect, everything he does has no consequence. A passionate kiss between him and Bella should spark a hint of change and highlight the difficulty of the situation, but does nothing of the sort. This seems to be explained way by the fact that she is "drawn" to him. That's it. No need for Edward to have any other positive aspects of character when girls are just drawn to you. Such a stupid deux ex like trait makes the idea of the love triangle more than a little ridiculous. it's certainly unbalanced.

There are good points. David Slade, director behind the vicious vamp piece 30 days of night, does well with the film's action. He does enough to distract the viewer from the terrible CGI and gives a nice PG-13 battle to awaken any poor boyfriends who have been dragged by their significant others. He also does his best to add one or two interesting visuals, but this is merely a passing fancy as just like the franchise's previous directors (Catherine Hardwicke, Chris Weitz) he doesn't do much to place his own stamp on the film. Another element of interest is Taylor Lautner who does his best to inject energy into his performance. He is far more watchable than the apathetic performances from everyone else. However this is a film franchise that shoehorns Anna Kendrick (who was superb in Up in the air) into two or three bland scenes. The same goes for the needless cast change of Bryce Dallas Howard. I understand that she is better known than Rachelle Lefevre, but if your going to "upgrade" your actors....give them something to do.

I know this will fall on deaf fan girl ears, but please understand that I have tried with this. Three films in and these people are still recycling the same two conversations as before. From the eye candy aspect, I get it. Two attractive men. Enjoy it while it lasts. I'll wait for them to take up interesting, serious future projects like Leo did.

Review: Remember Me

Year: 2010
Director: Allen Coulter
Screenplay: Will Fetter
Starring: Robert Patterson, Emilie de Ravin, Chris Cooper, Pierce Brosnan

Synopsis is here

It didn't take me more than a few minutes to guess the ending of Remember me. When the film's Gorgonzola cheese ending took place I had my head in my hands. I was slightly frustrated with what had took place. The reason? It almost undid all the good this movie has within it.

OK. Now don't laugh. As a straight, 26 year old man, who had so many issues with twilight I would need a therapist to get through them, I find this a hard thing to say...I really dug this movie. Now if I didn't write a film review blog and co-host a podcast I probably wouldn't go near a movie like this. Hell my girlfriend wouldn't touch it (she thinks Robert Patterson is ugly). However as a film reviewer with a podcast in tow, you do find yourself watching stuff you'd scoff at in real life.

The film has a tried and tested formula, the ending is not only predictable but cheesy and don't expect any visual mastery or epic storytelling. However, as a romantic drama, a date movie and a showcase for Robert Patterson...the film WORKS. Instead of being bored out of my mind, I found myself quite involved with the characters and the drama of the movie. This is a movie about guarded people who despite their losses, are given the chance to open up due to the connections they make, no matter how insignificant. It's not spectacular, it's not a high art, but it is thoroughly entertaining for what it is.

The reason for this is director Allen Coulter manages to coax convincing drama from the films actors and Will Fetter's mostly good natured script. It follows the right beats and hits the right mark. Coulter's time as a TV director clearly allows the people within film to breathe. The characters aren't special, but their well rounded and likable. We're not watching award winning stuff, but it is very manageable and goes down a hell of a lot smoother than I imagined.

A small amount of praise must go out to the two young leads who take something that should be quite tired passable. Robert Patterson with his wannabe James Dean brood and restraint quieter moments shows that when the material is stronger than "stand and look pretty" he is a capable actor. His most "showy" moment does show he weaknesses but his smile and all round charm minimize the damage. Emilie de Ravin's Ally is not only cute but a nice fit for Patterson's moody Tyler and levitates the role above the one note love interest display that it could have been. The chemistry works from the off and keeps the movie on it's path.

Seasoned pros Chris Cooper and Pierce Brosnan are slumming it a bit but still bring in the gravitas needed for their roles to be interesting. It was quite amusing to see Brosnan lose it in an office, as was Cooper going medieval on R-Patz ass. But I think that may be Twilight residue still inside me.

Unfortunately Remember Me suffers from having an obvious ending, badly executed, with an event that many critics have considered offensive. I'd love to say it's trying to deal with something that many would still find difficult...but alas it falls flatter than the pancakes that everyone is so interested in eating in the film.

But in all honesty, from a moral standpoint, I've seen far worse in the twilight films than anything that appears here. Before going in I was embarrassed to tell my girlfriend on the phone what i was going in to see. At the end of the film I phone her again and told her to watch it. The charm of the R-Patz eh?

Review: A Single Man

Year: 2009
Director: Tom Ford
Screenplay: Tom Ford, David Scearce
Starring: Colin Firth, Julianne Moore, Nicolas Hoult, Matthew Goode

Film Synopsis is here

I must admit, when I first saw the posters of a single man, I wasn't too impressed, nor was I bothered by the slight buzz it was starting to get from early reviews. I couldn't care enough about the films homosexuality being hidden in its marketing, not because I'm homophobic but because my disinterest in the bloody marketing in the first place! But then I saw the trailer for the first time and something struck me. The films style was up and out for all to see and it looked gorgeous. So gorgeous that maybe this is something I should have to see.

I'm glad I watched it because A Single Man was a fine film to watch. I was a little worried that my enjoyment may have been enhanced because I had just saw the dreadful The Lovely Bones and just wanted to see something else after to take away the pain but no, A Single Man works because it deals with similar aspects of grief better than Peter Jackson's bloated excuse of a movie. It's a film with strong performances that carry weight and a story that despite being well trodden, manages to tell the tale with panache. Some have complained it's style over substance, but the performances and taut pacing of the story says otherwise.

Ford's superb use of colour and confident direction of actors drive the film to it's end. The brightening of the hues when ever Firth's George reminisces about his lost love (played with a breezy boldness by Matthew Goode) works immensely well if a little overused. Moments of slow motion enhance emotion as opposed to merely looking cool (for the most part) and the visuals of the whole thing is as slick as hair gel...bad metaphor but I meant well.

What Ford's film captures best is the banality of what happens after death, a difficult process to grasp, but one that works by Ford accurately setting up a very pedestrian day, eight months after the death of George's Beau. Everything in the world is so sharp, clean and crisp. Not just because of the directors fashion background, but because this is how the character has decided to progress after such a loss. The contrast between this setting and the restrained look and weighted shoulders of Firth's George is where the drama stems from. We are watching a man who appears almost incapable of grieving, but not because he doesn't want to but he lives in a period where to cry out about his pain could be even more damaging.

It's a powerful display by Firth, an actor whose never caught my eye before (Richard Curtis comedies cause me to doze), brings about a a complex turn which meld old-school, British stiffness with a wave of emotion simmering just above the surface. Standout moments include George's lecture scene, a brief but telling moment between George and a security and of course the cheery conversation between George and his ditsy best mate Charlotte (the ever reliable Julianne Moore), which suddenly turns cold without a moments notice. Firth throughout is intensely watchable, but then again, the whole cast is, with a stand out going to Nicolas Hoult who pulls off a fantastic American drawl, that I myself had no idea he could do.

While this is a film which is more about the acting talent on display, Ford also tries his dab hand at co writing the screenplay along with David Scearce. The Result is a script which is as darkly humorous as it is emotional. the dialogue at times, comes off as smooth as the set design, but then again, this may also be down to the acting ability that is on display.

It's not grand as the film suffers from some pacing issues during the middle section and some might find the film to be a little dry but as a character study of one man's grief, you can do worse than watching A Single Man. Great performances, Luscious style, nice debut.

Hear me rave about this at Cinematic Dramatic Podcast at Geek Planet Online

Review: Youth in Revolt

Year: 2010
Director: Miguel Arteta
Screenplay: Gustin Nash
Starring: Micheal Cera, Portia Doubleday, Steve Buscemi, Zach Galifanakis, Fred Willard

Plot Synopsis is here

Based on a very well liked series of novels by C.D Payne, and directed by Miguel Arteta director of one of the only bearable Jennifer Aniston movies (The Good Girl), Youth in Revolt sees Micheal Cera once again in familiar territory as Nick Whisp. Is he yet another angsty, deer in headlights, teen in love with a girl that seems a little bit out of his league? You bet!

However, the novel, noted for it's offbeat humor and camp attitude has thrown a spanner into the works, and Cera plays, not only his typical casual geek self but also a slick, badboy alter ego whose dying to get into trouble in order to get into a girls panties. And whose said draws are they? They are the filly undergarments of Sheeni Saunders played by Portia Doubleday; a name that would have Bond screenwriters nodding in approval. With a build up like this what's not to like?

In my opinion, not a lot. Youth and Revolt may have 16 year olds that are a little too well spoken for their own damn good, but for me, it was laugh out loud funny and that's all that matters. In fact it's a film that did that troubling thing of making me laugh louder then I should, embarrassing my hot black ass in front of the other people in the cinema. It reveals in it's dark fantasy humor but bizarrely has an odd funny-because-it's-true feel to it. maybe because Twisp reminds me of myself at that age. Miguel Arteta taps into that "small town livin" atmosphere that made The Good Girl so interesting to watch and gives it an abstract twist that may remind some of his earlier entry; Chuck and Buck. Arteta pitches it's farce so well I couldn't stop grinning and while the humor isn't in Observe and Report territory it grabs hold of the absurdity it has got a pushes it as well as it can.

It's fanastic material for Cera who still does his doe eyed Schick but adds range with the alter ego of Francois Dillinger; a bad ass who makes even his most dubious comments sound almost charming (at one point he asks Sheeni to wrap her legs around his face so he can wear her like the crown that she is). It shouldn't be that funny...but it had me on the floor. One of Cera's main strengths as always been to turn a phase and here he's allowed to do it by the truckload. It helps that the writing here is perfect for him; quick witted and sharp but with that innocence that only comes out with his delivery. I don't think i described it well enough but I think that sounds better than....it just works.

While this is the Micheal Cera show, the film has a fine support cast for him to bounce off of. Fred Willard and Steve Buscemi are indie kings of this sort of thing while Zach Galifanakis delivers more oddball (read funny) work that made him the breakout star of The Hangover. Speaking of debuts, the role Sheeni played by Ms Doubleday is one of looks more than talent. Not to say she's bad....but this isn't really the part that show of her acting chops, although it will show off enough flesh to have teenagers develop their own alter egos and do bad things to get her attention.

If there's something I didn't like about the film it is the fact that the film pitters out towards the end and loses a lot of it's humor this is mostly to tie up the frayed ends of the plot, which is understandable but a shame.

However, for a February film release, Youth and Revolt is nutty, witty and full of charm. Arteta works best with his small pockets of the bizarre and Cera does his best work with that deer gaze of his. Combine this with his newly found range, a pencil thin tache and a fondness for Fellini that was hilariously missing from the overblown Nine and we're in business.

Hear me rave about this movie on The Cinematic Dramatic Podcast at Geek Planet Online

Review: New Moon

Year: 2009
Director: Chris Weitz
Screenplay: Melissa Rosenberg
Starring: Kirsten Strewart, Robert Patterson, Taylor Lautner and Micheal Sheen (for some reason)

Synopsis is here

Love and angst seem to go hand in hand, and some people love to see that at the movies. I don't mind either to be fair with you, in fact some of my favorite films are indeed angsty tales of love. But for love stories to work there must be something to hang on to. It is this reason that I can't see what all the fuss is about when it comes to the new tween favorite "The Twilight Saga". The star crossed lovers declare their affections constantly, but not once do I believe them.

New Moon is the next phase (sorry) in the Twilight series and as it's the second feature, it is a time for me as a viewer to get into these characters a bit more as they raise the stakes (sorry again) and build upon the foundations made within the first film. In the case of these series of films, it should be the loving relationship that was supposedly constructed by Bella (Stewart) and Edward (Patterson). The problem I have with this is quite simple; there wasn't that much of a relationship in the first place. The first film did a pretty useless job of making me believe that these guys were a couple and the second film does even worse in making me believe that they've continued one. At no point do these people ever look in love. Their relationship is cold and emotionless and while I understand that the film has a dark tone but no effort is placed within New Moon (or Twilight for that matter) to make me feel that these people were made for each other.

This couple is constantly miserable, whether they're together or not. The acting doesn't help, Stewart's incessant eye fluttering seems only to say that they laid the eyeliner a little thick, while Patterson believes that furrowing his brow means that he's displaying a wide range of complex emotions. Their talk of love is so devout of feeling, it makes the characters of Closer look like stars of a Cameron Crowe film. It doesn't help that the basis of their love is built upon the fact that, Edward wants her "desirable" blood and Bella likes shiny things (Edward is "beautiful" and also sparkles in sunlight).

It also makes New Moon's most important sub plot involving old friend/new lover Jacob (he's also a werewolf) even more frustrating because he and Bella actually HAVE a somewhat believable relationship. This love triangle is an isosceles one because where this Jacob fella is not only well built but he also has a personality, a history with Bella and has natural charm (portrayed relatively well by Taylor Lautner) while Edward...can sparkle and furrow his brow well good.

All the hard work by Jacob means nothing in the long run because A) Bella is a selfish manipulative cock tease (well everyone in the film is but Bella's actions to Jacob throughout are strangely harsh particularly her thoughts at the end) and B) The troublesome Mormon race issue arises; Jacob is a Native American, he is also considered to be a dog, a mutt and a wild animal compared to those sparkly pale faces with their wonderful restraint and ability to curb their baser urges. Yes! Jacob is a buck in the purist sense, he never had a chance with the virginal beauty that is Bella Sawn.

This is me looking far too deeply into what is a film, not targeted at myself but at tweens who like to believe in love at first bite (again sorry) and only care about smoldering good looks to make affection work. But usually I can appreciate a good romance done well; from the corny (yet structured) love story in Titanic to that moment where Di Caprio and Danes lock eyes by the fish tank in Romeo and Jullet, a love story which Twilight strives to be with it's obvious references but fails to hit the mark constantly. Despite this the film is still critic proof and has already made a killing at the box office, however, I feel its a shame that such success has come to a movie that is so bland, and so shallow and so lacking of feeling. But hey, all those boys went to Transformers 2 didn't they?

Hear Byron talk more about this movie at Geekplanetonline

(500) Days of Summer

Year: 2009
Director: Marc Webb
Screenplay: Scott Neustadter & Michael H. Weber
Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Zooey Deschanel

Honest, Emotional, Funny. That's not what everyone wants from a romantic comedy but it's those three things that I personally need when I watch one. In the same way that horror films should be unnerving, Rom-com's should be able be to from the heart as well as amusing.

Opening with a sketched scene (you'll see) that fans of Juno would be proud of (500) Days of summer has a whiff of "Hollywood quirk" to it. However, in no way does this stop the film from being a cheap imitator, no far from it. (500) Days of Summer is an unbelievably sincere movie. But even it was following the footsteps of the Juno's, Little Miss Sunshines and the rest of them, it would still appear more fresh then the latest manufactured Matthew McConaughey/Kathrine Higel/Kate Hudson piece of filth that litter the cinematic landscape.

Librally playing with time as if it were Quentin Tarantino in the 90's, the film jumps to various moments of the "relationship", but not in chronological order. It's hard to fully keep up with the numbers but that's not important. The point is the insight of perspective that the time skips give. The juxtaposition of scenes makes moments of the film which could have been uninspired in lesser films hilarious. But it also makes the realisation more painful. An awkward, strained trip to Ikea, becomes a cheerful romp through the fake rooms as the happy "couple" play husband and wife (big metaphor there) and you grin your arse off, if only to realise how truthful it is.

What makes (500) Days so good is how accurate it's observations are. During the movie you may finding yourself siding with our protagonist, I mean why isn't Tom's affections reciprocated? Why is this girl sending such mixed signals and after the film. Yes, it's the unreliable narrator that is our protagonist. The film is on Tom's side...a little too much. One character's mentions that Tom should look back at the relationship and realise that Summer may not be the girl of his dreams. The brief montage shows that Tom cannot, because he is in love with the IDEA of Summer so much so that he has blinded the actual reality. The lack of scenes with Summer at the helm only help prove it.

The film's accuracy stems from the carefully observed moments of madness the film captures. I've done the karaoke thing, I've stopped listening to bands because of certain women (I can't look at the beatles in the same way) and as for the outbursts? Just ask my mate rob about me on my 20th birthday yelling about dying alone. We pick these moments and we laugh because it's true (but also because of the sharply written script).

It also helps as it's shown by a male perspective. No I'm not being sexist, it's just refreshing. This is a genre that almost only caters for women. Also, the rom-com these days merely wishes to revel in the simplistic shallowness, improbable aspirations of male perfection, and of course unrealistic happy endings that the disgusting characters don't deserve. Here we have a man who is not just a handsome mouth breather but a young optimistic man who may be a little too needy.

This is a role played impeccably by Gordon-Levitt. My girlfriend stated that he has an "interesting" face and I argee. It's what separates him from other male actors. By not looking like a clean cut leading man, Gordon-Levitt elevates the performance even more by having a face that could fit well in a crowd. He plays against a women who could be considered by a few to be the next Parker Posey. Zooey Deschanel is all cute grins and sparkly eyes at first but the inside of the character displays a rich Independence. An Independence that isn't merely shown by the fact that she can be sexual, but its shown by her boldness around people. She's not a damsel in distress, nor is she a cold heart bitch, merely real.

Director Marc Webb a music video director, makes the film great to look at but doesn't let the look over power the film. In fact his visual tricky only enhance the emotions that Tom feels (the french new wave scene had make giggling). There's some great story telling at hand, and although some the metaphors are heavy handed (a t-shirt saying love will tear us apart? COME ON!), the film won my heart with it's wicked sense of humor (watching porn together?), visual playfulness and a chemistry between the two leads (and some strong support) which plays off remarkably well.

The film He's just not that into you had some horrible cynicism coated with sugar to pretend it was trying to be truthful. It was bollocks. Watch this instead, giggle with glee as Tom makes a fool out of himself, then cringe when you realise that you've done it too.

Review: Let The Right One In

Year: 2009 (Full U.K release)
Director: Tomas Alfredson
Screenplay: John Ajvide Lindqvist
Starring: Kare Hedebrant, Lina Leandersson

Vampires are big business again all of a sudden and I guess that's pretty cool. We've had Zombie films for ages so change is a good thing. Unfortunately, the most popular vampire tale being told at this moment is Twilight. A series with a soppy narrative, idiotic female characters (seriously that Bella character = Moron) and nurtured Vampires. While females from 8-30 enjoy that author's bizarre sexual fantasy (even the actors think it), it's really just not for me. Edward Cullen can stare into that dim-witted bints eyes for eternity, I like my vampires like Severen.

Which brings me to Let The Right One In, a vampire movie with balls..or not (people who know the story will get that). A film that is as ambiguous as it is beautiful, a film which believes in the idea of vampires connecting with humans but does nothing to take away their dark nature. No glittering skin here folks, it's blood on snow all the way.

But apart from the fact that a school kid begins a relationship with a vampire, LTROI doesn't share much of a connection with Twilight, in fact it has more in common with another Swedish made film; Lucas Moodysson's Lilja-4eva. Both deal with children from poor backgrounds and damaged family lives finding solace some an unexpected source. The similarities continue when both films show that the characters don't seem to be able to survive without each other, together the two halves make a complete whole. It is this emotional connection that is the strength of the movie, it's foundation is the assured direction from Tomas Alfredson, and it is built upon by two excellent display by it's child actors.

Alfredson's film is one that works best when it says nothing. It's dialogue is short and sharp and almost ineffective when compared to the movies images. Alfredson's direction of visuals is sublime, managing to put across character backgrounds and motivations quickly without having to resort to weak dialogue exposition. Alot of the images don't need dialouge to be compelling. I've never read the original novel, but in watching the film Alfredson manages to deleve into the lives of these people quickly and convincingly. After a brief skim of the novel's story you realise Alfredson's left quite a bit of the book out, but this in no way effects the film's appeal. In fact the film only make me want to read the original story more and how many adaptations do that?

Alfredson also coaxes two striking performances from the films leads. Kare Hedebrant is gives of the right air of innocence as Oskar, but it's Lina Leandersson's haunting portrayal of Eli that stands out. Ambiguous and complex, Leandersson's display is one that seems to show wisdom beyond her years while still holding an aspect of nativity about her. She's world weary and doesn't look a day over 12. The two are perfect for the film and maintain the cryptic motivations of their relationship until the end.

The film is not perfect, the music is far too obtrusive in a film that works best when quiet and certain subplots which are clearly more important in the book just don't sit comfortably with the rest of the film. But that's not the point, these are mere nitpicks of a film with a extremely raw emotional core.

The film is to be remade by Cloverfield's Matt Reeves and word has it that the U.S version will be made more "very accessible to a wider audience". This to me means spelt out to people would even bother to try and watch the original. I ask to myself whats the point (read: money) but as long as there's no glittering skin, it may be worth watching.

Review: Nick and Norah's Infinate Playlist

Year: 2008 (U.K release: 2009)
Director: Peter Sollett
Screenplay: Lorene Scafaria
Starring: Michael Cera, Kat Dennings

Much like this year's Observe and Report, I enjoyed Nick and Norah Infinite Playlist (or NNIP as it will now be called) as it struck a cord with me. It hit that deep rooted awkwardness that I repress within me deep down to the pit of my stomach. It's my kinda date movie: it doesn't preach, doesn't act too cool for school (despite the wannabe hip soundtrack), and like it's characters, the movie is just out for the ride.

One of my favorite reviewers James Berardinelli mentions that NNIP reminded him of the Richard Linklater's mid 90's hit Before Sunrise. I happened to check out Linklater's film a night before this one and I must disagree. Linklater's film is very much a slice of life piece while NNIP tries it's best to stick rigidly to a conventional three act structure. This is the film's weakness as it runs out of stream a little way under the second act. In fact I thought the film had finished early as both characters had appeared to wrap up all the outer conflict surrounding them quite swiftly. If NNIP had borrowed more of Linklater's freewheeling style then the films end would have been a lot stronger.

But like the aforementioned Before Sunrise, what NNIP has is two engrossing leads which pulled me though the films weaker moments. Nick and Norah are not only characters that are finding things out for themselves (unlike many of their idiot rom-com counterparts) but are entertaining to boot. Michael Cera and Kat Denning seem so naturally down to earth throughout it's hard not to like them. They remind me of John Hughes characters: introverted and yet accessible (let's leave Ferris out of this). Both are caught in that insecure little bubble that teens are nearly always in. Don't try and place them in the Juno crowd, they're not as self aware and sassy and because of that the two feel more like real teenagers (don't get me wrong however as I really liked Juno).

The interaction of the couple help push the unoriginal story forward and keep the engery up for as long as they can. The support also helps things with Aaron Yoo, Rafi Gavron and Jonathan B Wright playing a trio of gay guys who are amusing but do not irritate with overacted cliched campness. To add to this we are also given Ari Graynor who plays Norah's drunken friend Caroline. It's a role that made me laugh out loud often, mostly because I know drunks like that. It's a role played at just the right pitch with lines that sometimes sound too perfect to be scripted.

The last performance of note is that of Alexis Diziena, who plays Nick's superbitch ex-girlfriend. I skimmed a review which found a character like that far too exaggerated and wouldn't even look at a character like Nick. That reviewer was lucky enough not to go the same school and colleges that I went to because I saw girls who would be that kind of girl. Yes she's a a private school girl, but she clearly hasn't a car of her own and Nick seems the easily suggestible type whose IN A BAND. Material girls are still everywhere you look...believe me. Diziena plays the role adequately although in the last few months I've been spoilt with stronger mean girlfriend performances such as Kirsten Stewart in Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008).

While the film's pace is slightly off, director Peter Sollett manages to keep the tone light throughout. The same goes for the script which isn't as sharp as brighter teen comedies but still has some sparkling moments. I couldn't help but smile at some of the lines which could sound cheesy to some but reek of that youthful nativity I used to have, I blame the break ups.

I'm finding myself becoming even more intolerant to rom-coms, not only due to their lack of trying but their lack of sincerity. NNIP isn't going to be remembered as the romance of the decade but I'd rather the next generation set their eyes on little movies like this compared to the dubious sexual politics of Twilight or the horrid materialistic values of Sex in the city. It's not going to hit my top ten list but I can easily see myself watching this again with the girlfriend on a lazy Sunday, and that's not a bad thing.

Review: He's just not that into you.

Year: 2009
Director: Ken Kwapis
Screenplay: Abby Kohn & Marc Silverstein
Starring: Ginnifer Goodwin, Jennifer Aniston, Jennifer Connelly, Scarlett Johansson, Drew Barrymore, Ben Affleck, Bradley Cooper, Justin Long, Kevin Connolly, Kris Kristofferson


He's just not that into you is based on a non-fictional self-help book, however by the end of the film I swear the books title must have been the big book of fairy tales. I've seen Friends of mine have checked this film out and sworn the valid oath of truth upon it. Hell, my girlfriend didn't want me to watch it due to the fact that "it shows why women are all crazy".

Some the film brings up some interesting points of dating and relationships that could spark some fun debate (One character sums up some aspects of the young female thought process that ring very true. However, the film can't help but leave one foot lodged in a dream world. The worst thing is, it believes that the audience should believe it too. This is a film which states that women are conditioned to be nuts, but that's fine, because as long as they believe that life will fit into a neat little package...it will happen.

As a romantic comedy, it fails because it's not as funny as it should be. It fairs better as a romantic drama but loses it's way near the end as it believes that even unjustified moments of closure should be possible. It's irritating when a character believes in something strongly throughout a film, only to give up their belief because of some unnatural reason, or when a character gets a magical fairytale ending which just doesn't ring true but this film has them.

This is probably due to the huge amount of characters the film has to spend time with. Ensemble pieces are always tricky beasts and unfortunately director Ken Kwapis buckles under the pressure. So many characters, so many noticeable faces but so little focus, it's no surprise that the best narrative strands are the ones which have a little more time to breathe. With this said, even with so much going on, the screenplay is fully on point with a few aspects of the modern dating. The film touches on modern communication destroying the simple art of courting and even takes the slightest of glances at the idea of non married couples living happily together. Unfortunately any true insight is ignored in order to stay away from "troublesome" grey areas.

Surprisingly the stories that work well don't have the best performances in them. Ginnifer Goodwin is wonderfully sweet as the luckless wonder of love, while Justin Long is slowly building himself to be a reliable character actor as is Kevin Connolly (despite the role is just him being E) . Others aren't so lucky; Bradley Cooper is plain, Jennifer Anstion's only good film role is still The Good Girl, Scarlett Johanssonis woefully miscast, while Jennifer Connelly just needed more to do. Drew Barrymore, Luiz Guzman and Kris Kristofferson are also in this, but for no other reasons other than fill space*.

He's just not that into you is a weak entry into a very packed genre of movie. I can understand why my girlfriend didn't want me to see this as it did still show females as the bizarre enigma they are. It's a shame it did nothing to help me understand them anymore than usual. She should have stopped me from watching it however as it does have Scarlett Johansson looking stunning so I guess there a small piece of cash back.

*Note: Notice i didn't mention Ben Affleck in this? That's because it's Ben Affleck....take that how you will.