Year: 2009 (made in 2007)
Director: Oren Peli
Screenplay: Oren Peli
Starring: Kate Featherstone, Michi Sloat
Synopsis is here
Less is more and hype kills movies. Two things that have stayed with me since my first viewing of the Blair Witch Project. I remember raving like a frenzied beast about it when I was at school. Being a bit disappointed after watching it and phoning my dad up straight afterwards because there was no way I was walking the quick way (through the woods) in the dark. It's good when a film can plant a small seed in your brain and giggles as said seed grows in your sub-conscious unassumingly. I'll always wonder how I feel if I had been with those first film-goers when Myrick and Sanchez placed their tiny movie in the documentary section of sundance (those crazy kids).
This bring brings me to Paranormal Activity which follows similar beats to the Blair Witch film in not only story structure (Be interesting to watch them back to back) but in success and marketing madness. Made for supposedly $11,000 dollars (Blair 35,000) and reaping back a hell of a lot more than it's combined total (I'm including marketing costs). PA has become a bit of a phenomenon. After ten years since Blair Witch made Hollywood take notice and realise that the net is a superb idea to market all types of shit INCLUDING MOVIES! Parnormal Activity has one upped it by utilizing web 2.0 as much as possible with sites such as demand it to up it's popularity. This is particularly interesting as the film was shelved for two years by Paramount before hand.
Now with all this talk of Blair Witch story structure and marketing thieving, it's quite clear that PA nabs quite a bit from such films as The Entity (1988) and of course one of my favorites The Exorcist (1973) when it comes to themes, tearing them kicking and screaming their respective decades and shoving them in front of the youtube generation. It becomes very clear that whatever this thing is that is wrecking this couples' life wants to possess (read: Rape) it's subject, this time being the wholesome and down to earth Kate. It's an blatant metaphor but still one that can disturb. Whether or not it will affect you I cannot say, i will say I wasn't surprised that the more outward reactions in the audience were female.
Director Peli also subtly mixes more modern issues of fear along with the primal such house invasion, stalking, pedophilia (the entity has been bothering Kate since she was young) and sometimes almost deftly blends them with the idea of this being found footage. Moments I did enjoy were such ideas like the ever moving Timestamp and the idea that this information can be watched straight back as soon as possible making the fear felt by the characters imminent.
It's a pity that Peli spoils essentially what is a solid piece of work with mishaps that show that this is his first film and he is finding his feet. First off, for something that is "found" this really shouldn't feel as staged as it does. The acting is amateur (except for Katie Featherstone quieter moments) and so much of the films editing and camerawork constantly reminded me that is a "film" and not "footage". I spent a lot of the daytime scenes frustrated as a character will hold the camera on something that is clearly a plot reveal or emotional moment that I just wouldn't believe as something a person would "just do". I should be absorbed by this because I shouldn't think it's a film even if I know I do. Because The Blair Witch Project is a project and a documentary I found reasoning behind the footage being shot justified especially when the "fear" sets in. The same will also go for Cloverfield, a film with a "camerman" whose obvious yet justified reason to keep shooting goes with the territory that's set up.
Peli's other decision to make the male lead character an absolute douche bag, whose constant, aggressive (and ridiculously ineffective) decision making is the main reason for the escalating activity is a terrible idea poorly executed. Almost everything this man says took me out of the movie and his lack sympathy for his girlfriend, is obnoxious, irritating and doesn't ring true. With a film like this, I liked it's smaller moments; a house creak here, or a shadow there. It's those moments I enjoy about films like this, because in reality it's those small things what puts you off balance.
I'm glad PA is doing well because as a film that may not have seen the light of day it has enough in the film to be watchable. But heading back to my first paragraph; hype kills movies and less is more. Ten years ago I knew fuck all about film making (like i do now!) and my ignorance clearly showed as a then 15 year old boy called his daddy because the trees might get him. Now days I'm more jaded and cynical, and even though you can't see the strings when the doors slam, it's suddenly very hard to believe that a couple will hug so tenderly for a strategically placed camera.
Tuesday, 1 December 2009
Sunday, 29 November 2009
Review: Anti-Christ
Year: 2009
Director: Lars Von Trier
Screenplay: Lars Von Trier
Starring: Willim Defoe, Charlotte Gainsbourg
Synopsis is here
"I'm the greatest director in the world!" Von Trier cried after his Cannes screening of his latest film Anti-Christ. Why would he say something like that? Because he wishes to provoke reaction and his latest flick is no different. Knee jerk reactions were abound as soon as details of the film came out, with the most memorable of course being those rational people at the Daily Mail whose Mary Whitehouse-esque statements providing the most hilarity.
What most of those responses failed to see is that they've fallen into Von Trier smug self-promotion trap. Good or Bad the director just wants you to think of him and his "high art". The problem is for all it's beautiful visuals, Anti-Christ is a boring slog of a movie with only it's "shocking" scenes as it's high point and even those I found pretty tame.
In terms of technical aspects of craft, this is Von Triers best film. The cinematography is sublime while the sound production helps establish the films desolate tone. It's a shame that the film itself is filled with dull psycho-babble spewed by the two repugnant unnamed characters. Much has been said of the performances but I didn't warm to them or the people in anyway. Their listless manner of speaking became frustrating and the characters themselves are punch in the face horrible. Defoe's "He" is an elitist, patronizing prick while Gainsbourg "She" comes off as irritating more than anything else. By the time the film reaches it's over hyped climax I found it hard to care about what's happened to them.
Likened by critics for it's "serious" approach to grand subjects such as grief, by the time the CGI fox screams "chaos reigns" in your face, my funny bone has never been tickled harder. After all the films navel gazing posturing, the film suddenly descends into insanity as Von Trier decides to end the film with a needless display of gratuitous violence which doesn't disgust as much as it show complete disregard for it's audience. These scenes are no more than a selling point for the movie because a film like this would have been mostly dismissed without them. I can't see why however, because while Von Trier thinks he pushing boundaries, he doing nothing that Eli Roth or Rob Zombie could have dreamed up on a lazy Sunday afternoon. The only reason Anti-Christ isn't placed with the Hostels and the H2's of the world is merely because it's so well shot. It wants you to think that this is important film making but nothing from the film apart from it's violence is memorable and worthy of a re-watch, unless of course your studying cinematography.
Not that Von Trier cares what anyone thinks of his movie. He is a man who just wants to make sure he got your attention no matter how. It's a shame because sometimes with the right focus he's made some interesting projects but for every Dogville there's an The Idiots and Anti-christ falls insipidly into the latter category.
Director: Lars Von Trier
Screenplay: Lars Von Trier
Starring: Willim Defoe, Charlotte Gainsbourg
Synopsis is here
"I'm the greatest director in the world!" Von Trier cried after his Cannes screening of his latest film Anti-Christ. Why would he say something like that? Because he wishes to provoke reaction and his latest flick is no different. Knee jerk reactions were abound as soon as details of the film came out, with the most memorable of course being those rational people at the Daily Mail whose Mary Whitehouse-esque statements providing the most hilarity.
What most of those responses failed to see is that they've fallen into Von Trier smug self-promotion trap. Good or Bad the director just wants you to think of him and his "high art". The problem is for all it's beautiful visuals, Anti-Christ is a boring slog of a movie with only it's "shocking" scenes as it's high point and even those I found pretty tame.
In terms of technical aspects of craft, this is Von Triers best film. The cinematography is sublime while the sound production helps establish the films desolate tone. It's a shame that the film itself is filled with dull psycho-babble spewed by the two repugnant unnamed characters. Much has been said of the performances but I didn't warm to them or the people in anyway. Their listless manner of speaking became frustrating and the characters themselves are punch in the face horrible. Defoe's "He" is an elitist, patronizing prick while Gainsbourg "She" comes off as irritating more than anything else. By the time the film reaches it's over hyped climax I found it hard to care about what's happened to them.
Likened by critics for it's "serious" approach to grand subjects such as grief, by the time the CGI fox screams "chaos reigns" in your face, my funny bone has never been tickled harder. After all the films navel gazing posturing, the film suddenly descends into insanity as Von Trier decides to end the film with a needless display of gratuitous violence which doesn't disgust as much as it show complete disregard for it's audience. These scenes are no more than a selling point for the movie because a film like this would have been mostly dismissed without them. I can't see why however, because while Von Trier thinks he pushing boundaries, he doing nothing that Eli Roth or Rob Zombie could have dreamed up on a lazy Sunday afternoon. The only reason Anti-Christ isn't placed with the Hostels and the H2's of the world is merely because it's so well shot. It wants you to think that this is important film making but nothing from the film apart from it's violence is memorable and worthy of a re-watch, unless of course your studying cinematography.
Not that Von Trier cares what anyone thinks of his movie. He is a man who just wants to make sure he got your attention no matter how. It's a shame because sometimes with the right focus he's made some interesting projects but for every Dogville there's an The Idiots and Anti-christ falls insipidly into the latter category.
Tuesday, 24 November 2009
Review: The Informant!
Year: 2009
Director: Steven Soderbergh
Screenplay: Scott Z. Burns
Starring: Matt Damon
Synopsis is here
The Informant! (the ! is part of the title) is an odd little film, lying halfway between Steven Soderbergh's more adventurous features and his more mainstream affair. At first it struggles to find it's way. The screening I watched had three walkouts, and I could see why. I just simply wasn't getting into the characters and the predicament being set up. The build up is boring and sometimes frustratingly obscure with Soderbergh giving us a talkie set up which does little to entertain or give an entry point. When I watched a couple walkout just before we got to the middle of the film I didn't envy them.
However, that well known story about people leaving halfway through a film and suddenly the film gets better? Well this is what happened with The Informant! The film shook off it's dull first half and becomes a daft but amusing character study of a man whose naivety and inability to see the leaves through the trees puts him in a farcical heap of trouble.
The film could be more goofy and Soderbergh certainly sets the film up to be with it's day-glo titles and satirical musical score that send-ups spy films with a breezy charm. However, it's only when the shit hits the proverbial fan that the movies plot seems to fall into line with the rest of the films mechanics. As the pressure builds from the unreliable protagonist (narrated in a wonderful stream of consciousness style by Damon) the film becomes more and more intriguing, and what looked to be a sub-standard wanna be espionage, becomes darkly amusing character study.
Damon carries the film considerably well, because while all the talk of corn and price fixing does nothing to raise an eyebrow, his actual performance does. He once again reminds us that while he is now an A-list star, he is still an actor that can envelop and become a fully formed character. It's not just the manner of speaking and animated exasperation, but even the walk he walks helps bring about a desperate and deeply inadequate man. It's a good thing Sodenbergh has such faith in this man because the rest of the cast don't really raise their own game a such. In fact only Scott Bukula gives any performance of note.
While recording the podcast, my partner asked me if I considered this to be a lesser Sodenbergh film. I don't consider any of his features to be "lesser" so-called, as he always tries to bring something different to the cinematic party. The last year has had Soderbergh looking at character studies of a varied range of people and this is one of them. I do believe however, that The Informant! will require a viewers patience in order to get past the rather large hurdle of the first act.
Want to hear more talk about The Informat? Visit our podcast at GeekPlanetOnline
Director: Steven Soderbergh
Screenplay: Scott Z. Burns
Starring: Matt Damon
Synopsis is here
The Informant! (the ! is part of the title) is an odd little film, lying halfway between Steven Soderbergh's more adventurous features and his more mainstream affair. At first it struggles to find it's way. The screening I watched had three walkouts, and I could see why. I just simply wasn't getting into the characters and the predicament being set up. The build up is boring and sometimes frustratingly obscure with Soderbergh giving us a talkie set up which does little to entertain or give an entry point. When I watched a couple walkout just before we got to the middle of the film I didn't envy them.
However, that well known story about people leaving halfway through a film and suddenly the film gets better? Well this is what happened with The Informant! The film shook off it's dull first half and becomes a daft but amusing character study of a man whose naivety and inability to see the leaves through the trees puts him in a farcical heap of trouble.
The film could be more goofy and Soderbergh certainly sets the film up to be with it's day-glo titles and satirical musical score that send-ups spy films with a breezy charm. However, it's only when the shit hits the proverbial fan that the movies plot seems to fall into line with the rest of the films mechanics. As the pressure builds from the unreliable protagonist (narrated in a wonderful stream of consciousness style by Damon) the film becomes more and more intriguing, and what looked to be a sub-standard wanna be espionage, becomes darkly amusing character study.
Damon carries the film considerably well, because while all the talk of corn and price fixing does nothing to raise an eyebrow, his actual performance does. He once again reminds us that while he is now an A-list star, he is still an actor that can envelop and become a fully formed character. It's not just the manner of speaking and animated exasperation, but even the walk he walks helps bring about a desperate and deeply inadequate man. It's a good thing Sodenbergh has such faith in this man because the rest of the cast don't really raise their own game a such. In fact only Scott Bukula gives any performance of note.
While recording the podcast, my partner asked me if I considered this to be a lesser Sodenbergh film. I don't consider any of his features to be "lesser" so-called, as he always tries to bring something different to the cinematic party. The last year has had Soderbergh looking at character studies of a varied range of people and this is one of them. I do believe however, that The Informant! will require a viewers patience in order to get past the rather large hurdle of the first act.
Want to hear more talk about The Informat? Visit our podcast at GeekPlanetOnline
Monday, 23 November 2009
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
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
Wednesday, 18 November 2009
Review: Fish Tank
Year: 2009
Director: Andrea Arnold
Screenplay: Andrea Arnold
Starring: Katie Jarvis, Micheal Fassbender
Synopsis is here
When we first meet Mia (Katie Jarvis) she is alone, breathing heavily from practicing her hip-hop dancing in an empty blue room, looking out at the window in front of her. The window is rectangular and the image confirms that the confined Fish Tank that the title speaks of, is of course the Essex estate that is the setting of the story. Within a minute we are told almost everything we need to know about the character we're about to follow. The image is simple, stark and yet effective. It's also British filmmaking at it's strongest.
Andrea Arnold is a director that is quickly becoming one of the most intriguing British directors working today. She is a filmmaker that only produces strong female characters that do need to resort to using a gun or a knife to prove their strength. When they act, it doesn't feel that the script has told them to do it, it feels like the characters actual behavior dives them do act. In modern cinema, this can be every difficult to achieve, but Arnold in only her second feature is proving not only that she is an assertive and confident British director but an important one also.
Comparisons to Loach are abound, but Fish Tank reminds me more of Luke Moodyson's Lilya 4-Ever (2004). Both deal with young women trying to find their place in a world where Role Models are scare and Innocence can be easily lost. Arnold's film brings us this in a another simple but brilliant metaphor involving an old white horse owned by a group of brothers, chained in a field. Some might find the symbolism a little obvious but the films direction is so confident it hardly matters and helps enhance Fish Tank's unsure climax.
Until then we spend two hours of subtle unease as Mia's mother brings home Connor, played by a seductive Micheal Fessbender whose turn is so far away from his part in Inglourious Basteds you may wonder if it's the same person. The unsettling sexual tension between unknown Jarvis' fiery performance and Fessbender's charm is combustible and Arnold's building of the discomfort becomes almost unbearable as she tightens the screws slowly with the camera awkwardly lingering for a moment too long. Scenes consistently keep the anxiety just creeping above the surface and by the time we reach the third act, Arnold has wound the film so tightly that even the coke I was drinking couldn't shift the massive stone that had landed in the pit of my stomach. The payoff of all this is sutble and not as explosive as one may have considered, but Fish Tanks minimal resolution stays clear of easy answers and cliche and still managed to leave me speechless.
Fish Tank also features a use of music to utilize style, tone and background (it's not only interesting but insightful to see that it's the materialistic, commerical hip-hop lifestyle that appears to inspire working class whites on the Essex estate). Arnold also makes an articulate choice of using "Life's a bitch" by Nas to heighten of the films final moments. This attention to detail that makes the film stand above many other films of the year.
Fish Tank is an unflinching coming of age story which shows a cinematic talent beginning to hit her stride. Establishing themes that are personal to herself (Voyeurism which was prominent in Arnold's Red Road rears it's head once again), it is yet another female director who has brought about one of the most gutsy films of the year (see also Kathryn Bigalow's The Hurt Locker). For British Drama, nay, cinema doesn't get any better....Well...maybe Moon, but this is up there also kay?
Director: Andrea Arnold
Screenplay: Andrea Arnold
Starring: Katie Jarvis, Micheal Fassbender
Synopsis is here
When we first meet Mia (Katie Jarvis) she is alone, breathing heavily from practicing her hip-hop dancing in an empty blue room, looking out at the window in front of her. The window is rectangular and the image confirms that the confined Fish Tank that the title speaks of, is of course the Essex estate that is the setting of the story. Within a minute we are told almost everything we need to know about the character we're about to follow. The image is simple, stark and yet effective. It's also British filmmaking at it's strongest.
Andrea Arnold is a director that is quickly becoming one of the most intriguing British directors working today. She is a filmmaker that only produces strong female characters that do need to resort to using a gun or a knife to prove their strength. When they act, it doesn't feel that the script has told them to do it, it feels like the characters actual behavior dives them do act. In modern cinema, this can be every difficult to achieve, but Arnold in only her second feature is proving not only that she is an assertive and confident British director but an important one also.
Comparisons to Loach are abound, but Fish Tank reminds me more of Luke Moodyson's Lilya 4-Ever (2004). Both deal with young women trying to find their place in a world where Role Models are scare and Innocence can be easily lost. Arnold's film brings us this in a another simple but brilliant metaphor involving an old white horse owned by a group of brothers, chained in a field. Some might find the symbolism a little obvious but the films direction is so confident it hardly matters and helps enhance Fish Tank's unsure climax.
Until then we spend two hours of subtle unease as Mia's mother brings home Connor, played by a seductive Micheal Fessbender whose turn is so far away from his part in Inglourious Basteds you may wonder if it's the same person. The unsettling sexual tension between unknown Jarvis' fiery performance and Fessbender's charm is combustible and Arnold's building of the discomfort becomes almost unbearable as she tightens the screws slowly with the camera awkwardly lingering for a moment too long. Scenes consistently keep the anxiety just creeping above the surface and by the time we reach the third act, Arnold has wound the film so tightly that even the coke I was drinking couldn't shift the massive stone that had landed in the pit of my stomach. The payoff of all this is sutble and not as explosive as one may have considered, but Fish Tanks minimal resolution stays clear of easy answers and cliche and still managed to leave me speechless.
Fish Tank also features a use of music to utilize style, tone and background (it's not only interesting but insightful to see that it's the materialistic, commerical hip-hop lifestyle that appears to inspire working class whites on the Essex estate). Arnold also makes an articulate choice of using "Life's a bitch" by Nas to heighten of the films final moments. This attention to detail that makes the film stand above many other films of the year.
Fish Tank is an unflinching coming of age story which shows a cinematic talent beginning to hit her stride. Establishing themes that are personal to herself (Voyeurism which was prominent in Arnold's Red Road rears it's head once again), it is yet another female director who has brought about one of the most gutsy films of the year (see also Kathryn Bigalow's The Hurt Locker). For British Drama, nay, cinema doesn't get any better....Well...maybe Moon, but this is up there also kay?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)