Nice Chianti Film Reviews

BIFFF 2010

2010-04-21T12:06:00.001Z

I was lucky enough to attend this year's Brussels International Fantastic Film Festival, and I thought I'd post a bunch of one-line reviews for all the films I saw. Some of these will be getting the full review treatment soon too!

A Serbian Film (Serbia, 2009, dir. Srdjan Spasojevic): FANTASTIC! Music, direction, acting, structure, metaphor, extremity – superb. Won’t ever see the light of day in the UK in its current form!

The Human Centipede: First Sequence (USA, 2009 dir. Tom Six): great fun, something a little bit different, not that sick!

The Killer Inside Me (USA, 2010, dir. Michael Winterbottom): great! Twisted, enjoyable, brutal, wonderful central performance

Valhalla Rising (Denmark/UK, 2009, dir. Nicolas Winding Refn): awesome, but needs a second viewing; very metaphorical and arty

Heartless (UK, 2009, dir. Phillip Ridley): really enjoyable and well-made, although again incoherent in parts

Ondine (Ireland/USA, 2010, dir. Neil Jordan): lovely fairytale, cheesy, yes, but very pretty and sweet

Vampires (Belgium, 2009, dir. Vincent Lannoo): Hysterically funny and witty, a very likeable film

Detour (Norway, 2009, dir. Severin Eskeland): utterly clichéd but massively entertaining slasher throwback

Zombies of Mass Destruction (USA, 2009, dir. Kevin Hamedani): surprisingly good fun, despite crap acting and hit-and-miss jokes, great make up effects

Slice (Thailand, 2010, dir. Kongkiat Khomsiri): an interesting, twisty thriller, but the humour/drama does not meld as well as it could

Possessed (South Korea, 2009, dir. Lee Yong Joo-I): decent creeper, but too long and too similar to Dark Water

5150 Rue des Ormes (Canada, 2009, dir. Eric Tessier): solid thriller/horror, a little incoherent but enjoyable and a bit different

The Life and Death of a Porno Gang (Serbia, 2009, dir. Mladen Djordjevic): explicit comedy/drama, which completely loses its way after the first 40 minutes or so, with the political rhetoric being less effective when all the humour is lost

Glenn 3948 (Belgium, 2010, dir. Marc Goldstein): cute but bizarre concept terribly executed; awful music, direction, acting, script

Duress (USA, 2009, dir. Jordan Barker): a solid thriller let down by an uncharismatic lead and a twist that’s too twisty

Evil in the Time of Heroes (Greece, 2009, dir. Yorgos Noussias): utter shit!

Hidden (Norway, 2009, dir. Pal Oie): boring, looked nice though

Ingrid (Spain, 2009, dir. Eduard Cortes): enjoyable, if pretentious, film about arty young people

Reykjavik Whale-Watching Massacre (Iceland, 2009, dir. Julius Kemp): boring, nothing special

Giallo (Italy, 2009, dir. Dario Argento): a cheap Argento knock off…directed by Argento himself...no sign of a career resurgance here!

Survival of the Dead (USA, 2009, dir. George A. Romero): just…what?!

Oscar Nominations 2010

2010-02-02T18:26:00.004Z

So, the Oscars. A few adequate surprises in what is mostly a rehash of nominations we’ve seen over and over again this awards season.

I’m going to come right out and tell you which nomination excites me the most: Hans Zimmer’s Sherlock Holmes for Best Original Score. Say what you will about the film (I personally love it a little more than might be considered healthy), but there’s no denying that the music is superb. I’m so pleased to see it get recognised!

The Best Picture list is a nice, if predictable, list. Very pleased to see District 9 and Up recognised in there, but The Blind Side? Really? It must be a two-horse race between Avatar and The Hurt Locker, but I’d love to see an outsider like An Education steal it! For Best Director, I’m rooting for Kathryn Bigelow. I’ve seen embarrassingly few of this years’ main nominees, but I’m rooting for the lady, hands down.

So pleased to see Colin Firth nominated, but I’m betting Jeff Bridges is almost a certainty in the Best Actor category. I’d say betting against Sandra Bullock would be fairly foolish, too, but damn, if I’m not rooting for Carey Mulligan. Christoph Waltz must surely be another safe bet, and deservedly so, and Mo’Nique must be fairly certain for Best Supporting Actress, in what seems like a decidedly week category (as much as the inclusion of Anna Kendrick makes me happy!).

For Best Original Screenplay I am hoping against hope that Up steals it, even if simply for the line “I was hiding under your porch because I love you.” Similarly, I would love to see District 9 steal away the Best Adapted Screenplay award, and I’m also pleasantly surprised to see In the Loop recognised there.

Best Animated Feature shouldn’t even be up for discussion. Up.

I would get into the technical categories, but to be honest I mostly don’t understand them and would just be picking out my favourite films from the lists. Having said that, I’m still rooting Sherlock Holmes for Best Art Direction ;)

What're your thoughts on the nominations?

Love-fest '10

2010-01-15T00:33:00.006Z

Wow, I've been named as a ~~Kreativ~~ ~~Creative~~ Kreativ Blogger! As a result, it's my responsibility to pass on the honour!

1: Thank the person who nominated me

A very big thank you David McGuigan, for saying lovely things about me. Anyone who calls me a 'smart lady' and says my opinions are 'well-observed' is cool in my book! But seriously - thank you. We've been chatting on Twitter and it's always great to have such in-depth conversations about film, and to end up being appreciated in return!

2: Copy the logo and place it on your blog

Ooh, swish!

3: Link to the person who nominated you for this award

Done. :)

4: Name 7 things about yourself that people may find interesting:

Oh my god, seven? Are you serious?! I'm not that interesting! Here goes anyway...

1) I've been a vegetarian since I was 9 (I'm now 23). Hard work it was too: it's because I love the lovely animals, not because I don't like the taste of meat. Of course, by now, I feel sick even at the smell of meat, so now, it's pretty damn easy :)

2) I did two years of a Celtic Studies degree before switching to Film and Television Studies. I don't regret it: had I decided to study film from the very beginning, I probably would never have ended up at Aberystwyth University. This town may be small, and in the middle of nowhere, but it's got a bloody great bunch of people teaching film, and a damn fine little horror festival, too ;)

3) I have three phobias, which I'm expanding to three points on this list because like I said...seven?! Anyway, the first: needles. I cannot even watch injections etc. on screen. I can watch all sorts of gory junk and barely bat an eyelid, but even hint that an injection is about to be shown and I'll have to cover my eyes. If I have to have an injection/have blood taken, I will do it, but I will feel like utter crawling hell for every single second of the wait and the act itself.

4) Second phobia: spiders. I can literally waste HOURS of my day if there's a spider around. I once wasted a whole morning because there was a tiny, barely-visible spider in the way of my wardrobe, meaning I couldn't get dressed. I even have one of those 'friendly spider catchers', but it doesn't matter, I can stand at arms length from the creature, spider catcher in hand, and just stay like that, for minutes and minutes on end. My problem? See that thing about being a vegetarian? I can't bring myself to kill the little bastards either - it's hardly their fault I'm scared of them!

5) Third phobia: the dark. What?! I hear you cry...well, yes. This phobia is not nearly so bad as the other two, however, I am pretty scared of the dark. Switch a light off on me and I will probably freak out. While it doesn't bother me to the extent that I can't walk outside at night or whatever, it does bother me to the extent that when I get ready for bed at night, I have to make sure everything's done so that as soon as I switch the light off, I can jump into bed. If I need to do anything else - that light goes right back on again. Ditto, I won't walk into dark rooms or leave a dark room behind me if I know I'll be going to be walking back through it shortly after.

6) Bizarrely, despite all my love of promoting women in film and so forth, I cannot name you my favourite actresses (aside from Gillian Anderson), never mind my favourite female filmmakers. However, my favourite directors are Ingmar Bergman, Stanley Kubrick, Lindsay Anderson and Gaspar Noe; while my favourite actors are Anthony Hopkins, Malcolm McDowell, Conrad Veidt and Dirk Bogarde. Those lists come easily. Go figure.

7) I can play the piano, although not nearly as well as I used to (which wasn't that great). I love classical music, and if I had to pick one one CD to take on a desert island or whatever, it'd be Beethoven's Ninth.

Phew. Thank god that's done.

5: Nominate 5 Kreativ bloggers (I'm going to try to be a bit different...)

1) Bloofer Lady: http://www.horrorcrypt.com/ Lady knows her stuff, and has impecable taste in actors ;)

2) Hannah Neurotica: http://hannahneurotica.com/ The personal blog of a very inspirational lady, whose dedication to horror is nothing short of magnificent.

3) Jen and Sylvia Soska: http://twistedtwinsproductions.blogspot.com/ These two ladies are just plain awesome: great films, great attitude, great future.

4) Lloyd Kaufman: http://www.lloydkaufman.com/roids Yes, this counts as a blog (sort of...). Lloyd's a wonderfully intelligent man, which, wrapped in such a great wit, is put to great use here.

5) Keri O'Shea: http://flowersoffleshandblood.blogspot.com/ She's very new to blogging, but she's not new to damn fine film reviewing. Check her out.

~~6: Post links to the 5 blogs~~

7: Leave a comment on the blogs you have nominated.

Good god this is hard work! But fine. I have. I did. It's done.

Thus ends your unscheduled backslapping :D

2009: Top 10

2009-12-31T20:15:00.015Z

I've been seeing top ten lists popping up everywhere, so I finally thought why the hell not: here's my own. There are a lot of good films I've managed to miss though - A Serious Man, The Hurt Locker, Moon to name but three (I know, it's a travesty) - but I'm fairly sure much of this list would remain the same. The list has a vague order to it, but some films could probably easily switch positions!

Without further ado, here are my top ten films of 2009. Feel free to agree/disagree/laugh at my taste ;)

1. La Horde (Yannick Dahan)

This French action-horror is fist-in-the-air, cheer-for-the-heroes, balls-to-the-wall brilliance. Not remotely original or clever, the film is full of interesting characters (although many are introduced with an utterly pointless prelude) and directed with such gusto that it's impossible not to love it.

2. Up (Pete Docter and Bob Peterson)

Up. What on earth can I say about Up that hasn't been said already? While Wall-E remains my favourite Pixar movie (and is, pretty much, my favourite film ever), Up is an exquisitely made film which treats children as future grown-ups and grown-ups as eternal children. Just...gorgeous.

3. Sherlock Holmes (Guy Ritchie)

Rip-roaring good fun, Sherlock Holmes is a perfect event movie: great fun, great excitement, great set-pieces, great dialogue, great music...the smile that was plastered on my face for most of the movie was still there hours later. And I've not even mentioned the chemistry between Downey Jr. and Law...

4. District 9 (Neill Blomkamp)

A film I reviewed earlier in the year, District 9 proves that sci-fi can still be interesting, while providing silly guns and tentacled aliens. As exciting on a third viewing as it was on the first, District 9 is a true triumph.

5. Mesrine, parts 1 and 2 (Jean-Francois Richet)

This two-parter is an exercise in thrills, with an absolutely electric lead performance by Cassel. While the supporting cast - including Cecile de France, Samuel le Bihan and the wonderful Mathieu Amalric - all put in great performances and the direction keeps the action alive, Cassel really steals the show.

6. Enter the Void (Gaspar Noe)

I'm still not even sure if Enter the Void can be called a 'good' film, but my god, it's an experience. That it's still not been picked up for distribution is baffling, as it's a visual and aural feast. Noe does not disappoint in continuing to challenge his audience.

7. Antichrist (Lars Von Trier)

The utterly graphic Antichrist might not be as shocking as some people have made out (though shocking it is), it's a truly dark film that explores grief and insanity like no other. And thank goodness for the courage of an actress like Charlotte Gainsbourg.

8. Avatar (James Cameron)

The story might be something we've heard before, and its morals might be didactic, but there is no fault to Avatar's visuals. There's not an instant in the film where the Na'vi and their world don't convince as being completely and utterly real.

9. Thirst (Park Chan-wook)

A darkly funny twist on the vampire tale, Chan-wook breathes life into the poor, abused blood-suckers. I'm looking forward to the DVD release, because a double-bill with Let the Right One In would be divine!

10. Orphan (Jaume Collet-Serra)

Orphan may not have gained massive critical acclaim, but it's one the films that I most enjoyed this year. It's accessible, but brave, mainstream horror with an absolutely stellar performance from young Isabelle Fuhrman as the titular orphan, Esther, who deserves to go down in the annals of great creepy kids.

Honourable mentions go to: Drag Me to Hell (Sam Raimi), Bronson (Nicolas Winding Refn), St. Trinian's 2: The Legend of Fritton's Gold (Oliver Parker and Barnaby Thompson) and Dorian Gray (Oliver Parker). Stop sniggering at the back, I really mean those last two!

Happy new year everyone - here's hoping 2010's a good year for film!

Women and the Box Office

2009-12-04T15:46:00.003Z

In response to: http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/12/04/women.audience.box.office/index.html

Oh, Hollywood. Hollywood, Hollywood, Hollywood. And oh, popular reporting on Hollywood. Do you really think that by providing an infinite loop of this kind of reporting that the big bad male studio execs you refer to will ever change? No, they won’t.

New Moon, The Blind Side, The Devil Wears Prada, Sex and the City, Mamma Mia, Julie and Julia, 27 Dresses, The Ugly Truth. I’m female, and I’ve seen three of these films – Mamma Mia on DVD (because I was literally forced to, by my parents), New Moon because it’s stupidly entertaining and The Ugly Truth because I mistakenly thought that Gerard Butler would make up for the shitty script.

"There's no difference in movie-going by gender; women are just as likely to go to the movies as men," the director of the Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film, Martha Lauzen, is quoted as saying. Well, good for her. The next paragraph along, however, and we get this gem: “If you give women movies reflecting their experience and interests, Lauzen says, they will go -- even on opening weekend.” Oh my gosh, go to the cinema on an opening weekend?! But I always wait a few weeks so the horrible boy smell has gone?! Puh-lease – a film doesn’t have to reflect my experience nor my interests for me to go see it, opening weekend or not. The article goes on to comment that “the movie industry always seems surprised to find out that women go to the movies” – this is true, but I think there’s a confusion here too, between films with lots of women in them, and cinemas with lots of women in them.

Another quote by Lauzen: "Women are a dramatically underserved segment of the moviegoing population, and if the industry would produce films that are not, by the way, just about shoes and clothes, but really had multidimensional female characters doing interesting things, women will go to see these movies in droves." True, and that’s all well and good, but this same article has just listed New Moon, Sex and the City and The Ugly Truth amongst recent successes – multidimensional and interesting they are not. A quote from a different commentator: "studios are run by stubborn men, so it'll take more than this to make substantial changes." While I’ve no doubt that this is true, maybe if women (and men!) stopped showing up in droves to watch drivel like The Ugly Truth (guilty, as charged, although that was a rare slip-up), then said stubborn men would stop hiring hacks (male and female) to make backward rom-coms and might instead hire more Kathryn Bigelows and Lexi Alexanders. Of course, if the same stubborn men stopped peppering their ‘man films’ (god, what a horrible turn of phrase) with semi-naked ‘actresses’, they might find more female bums on seats for those films too.

But, most of all, guess what, CNN? A hell of a lot of women go watch horror movies, too, and I’ll bet the same's true for other sorts of films. Recently an internet radio show host expressed her absolute surprise (nay, disbelief) that at least half of horror audiences are women. I’m going to go take a guess as to why that’s a surprise – because outlets like CNN don’t talk about it. They definitely do talk about The Blind Side and The Ugly Truth, though. Maybe if we celebrated and talked about women going to watch all sorts of films, then those big bad Hollywood men would think about changing their ways too.

Short Film: The Return, Elli Raynai

2009-11-27T14:20:00.003Z

The Return is a short film with a lot of ambition. It tells the tale of a teenager who runs away from home only to return – transformed. As a meditation on revenge and guilt, the film makes a lovely twist on the zombie genre. Personally, however, the one thing it truly strives for – exciting VFX – is the one thing that lets it down most.

This short has a great concept and a strong script to go with it and Raynai directs the action wonderfully. These strengths are only somewhat undermined by the shaky acting, but in a film of this budget such a weakness is only to be expected and does not distract too much from the concept.

So, the visual effects. I should qualify my thoughts on this aspect of the film by pointing out that I have issues with the over use of digital effects in horror (or any genre). The visual effects used in The Return are far from terrible, however, I dislike the extent to which they’re used. The practical make-up effects used in The Return are wonderful, and it seems a shame that more make-up effects weren’t used in place of the digital effects. Personally, I’d rather see slightly cheap-looking make-up effects on a zombie, than nice-looking digital ones. Instead of thinking ‘oh my god, he’s a zombie!’ in this film, I found myself thinking ‘huh, check out those digital effects’. This may be due to my own aversion to the pervasive use of computer-generated effects, but my point is thus: make up is actually there, a digital effect isn’t. I’m far more likely to believe in a less-than-perfect make-up effect than a less-than-perfect digital effect.

The Return shows a lot of potential, but a reliance on digital effects won’t, in my opinion, allow that potential to shine.

For more information on the film, check out the website: http://www.willhereturn.com/

Enter the Void (Noe, 2009)

2009-10-21T15:59:00.003Z

On Friday I took a 5:30am train to travel to London in order to see Gaspar Noe’s latest film, Enter the Void, screening as part of this year’s London Film Festival. As I stood outside the Vue cinema in Leicester Square a young man approached the box office and asked, quite confidently, for a ticket to see ‘Entering the Void’. I wondered if he couldn’t get the title right, if he knew quite what he was letting himself in for. Having now seen the film, it’s safe to say that it doesn’t matter how familiar you are with the film before going to see it for yourself – it’s impossible to know what you’re letting yourself in for.

Read the rest of the review HERE @ FilmSnobbery.com!

District 9 (Blomkamp, 2009)

2009-09-08T23:22:00.005Z

District 9 is a film that arrives in cinemas following a very heavy marketing campaign, which deemed Earth “for humans only”. It would be easy to be disappointed following the heavy hype around it; however District 9 is well worth the wait.

The story takes place in Johannesburg, above which an alien ship hangs dormant, while millions of its inhabitants live in rudimentary shacks in an area known as ‘District 9’. Here, they’re kept away from the human population (aside from ruthless gangsters keen to exploit the situation), but following much public pressure Multi-National United, a technology company, is drafted in by the government to lead the displacement of the aliens from District 9 to a newer compound, District 10, away from the city. District 9 is shot part-documentary style, and part-straight actioner. There are times when people talk to camera about the events that unfold during the course of the film, at other times people explode after being shot by an alien ray gun.

Central to this story is Wikus wan de Merwe, a pencil pusher who is appointed to lead the evacuation of District 9. He’s appointed by his father-in-law, who is an MNU higher-up. Wikus leads us around District 9 as he begins evicting aliens, and we come to realise that Wikus is not especially likeable as he undermines, manipulates and mocks the aliens – and when he gleeful orders the burning of a shack-full of alien eggs, and comments that it sounds like popcorn, he truly cements that unlikeability. Unfortunately for Wikus, he’s exposed to an alien fluid, and so begins a slow and painful transformation into a ‘prawn’ – a derogatory nickname for the aliens.

I would, for a minute, compare Wikus to another civil servant shoved into a situation far beyond his – or anyone else’s – capabilities: Torchwood’s John Frobisher. John Frobisher is a civil servant tasked with communicating and negotiating with an alien life-form who wants to exchange 10% of the Earth’s children in exchange for not destroying the planet. Frobisher must allow and commit terrible things – such as negotiate the number of children to deliver to the alien. But John Frobisher is a sympathetic man. He is clearly in over his head, he is downtrodden, and he is a scapegoat for the puppet masters who are the true human villains. Personally, however, I did not find Wikus to be a sympathetic man. He gleefully accepts the position he is given. He happily treats the aliens as lesser beings, has no qualms about demonstrating the manual abortion of an alien egg by removing the pipes that feed it, and he calmly stands by as aliens are beaten and shot. Even when it becomes clearer that Wikus is our hero, he behaves in highly unlikeable ways, turning on Christopher, an alien he must turn to for help, in order to save his own skin. Wikus gets his redemption, certainly, but he’s a hateful hero for most of the film.

How can a film with a hateful hero succeed in being so involving? The answer is two-fold: he is only as hateful as he is human, and the aliens he must work with show more humanity than, at times, he does. District 9 is achieves this through some wonderful dialogue, which is truly the film’s strength. Wikus’ occasional monstrosity is highlighted through some subtle moments from the aliens, who are more often seen mindlessly destroying their surroundings, fighting, or eating. For example, when told that he’s about to be evicted, one alien responds (in an alien language, subtitled – the aliens never speak English) “What is eviction?” while another, when asked if he understands, simply says “No.” The alien rabble does not understand what is happening to them, and no effort is made to explain.

But these are just anonymous aliens. The real pathos comes in the form of Christopher Johnson, a particularly intelligent alien, who is striving to fix a shuttle to return to the mothership, and so home. With him is his son, an adorable, half-sized alien. In Christopher we see some marvellously human behaviour. When Wikus scuppers their chances of fixing the shuttle, Christopher sits his son down and tries to explain to him that they can’t go home yet, but that they can go to a new home, all while showing him an MNU-produced leaflet advertising District 10. He displays anger much like a human would, punching and kicking a wall. Perhaps most subtly, Christopher displays a cleverly human trait of manipulating Wikus, who has just made fun of his attempts to fly home, by simply saying “Too bad,” drawing Wikus to ask more questions, before revealing that he could help Wikus’ condition if he could make it to the mothership. Not only does Christopher not rise to Wikus’ mockery, he twists the situation on its head by making Wikus agree that fixing the shuttle is a good idea.

The idea of going home is what links Wikus and Christopher. Wikus desperately wants to return home to his wife, Tania, but cannot because his father-in-law is part of the campaign to keep him captive and to use him to further MNU’s knowledge of alien weaponry. Christopher simply wants to return, with his son and his people, to their home planet. A wonderful moment takes place when Christopher’s son holds his arm out alongside Wikus’ arm – which has transformed into an alien arm - and the child says “We’re the same.” Through Christopher’s striving to save his people, the aliens display more brotherly humanity than any of the humans. The humans of the film have almost as little regard for each other as they do for the aliens, exemplified by MNU. Through the course of the film, Wikus’ transformation into an alien accelerates, and it is only as he is further transformed that he finds his humanity and his redemption.

Another film I would compare District 9 with would be Wall-E. These two films appear to be infinitely different, but they deal with very similar themes, namely the theme of returning home, and of non-humans reminding humans how to be, well, human. While Wall-E, a robot, succeeds in showing all of what’s left of humanity that they need to look further than simply inward, and in doing so helps facilitate their return home, Christopher succeeds in showing just Wikus what it means to be truly human: by striving to help his own people, and by being unfailingly kind to Wikus, despite all his injustice.

It can be said that the second half of District 9 simply resorts to generic shoot-outs and man-on-the-run action. That may be so, but such a strong foundation is laid with the story and the characters that this is hardly a bad thing. It allows for a little showmanship in Neill Blomkamp’s direction, and some truly great action sequences. Blomkamp makes effective use of special effects, with the CGI aliens convincingly real. Although Blomkamp displays great potential with his debut feature film, the real star of District 9 is, without a doubt, its lead actor, Sharlto Copley, who reportedly adlibbed all his lines. His performance is utterly convincing and full of subtleties – despite the fact that he is undeniably cruel at the beginning of the film, there is a great deal of humour in his character. I sincerely hope he’s rewarded accordingly come the awards season.

There are subtle hints in District 9 to how the situation regarding the aliens is shrouded in propaganda. In scrolling news, the aliens are described as politically correct ‘space creatures’, rather than the racist term ‘prawn’ used by almost everyone actually involved with the aliens; while a training tape played in the background of an MNU truck cheerily informs that “a smile is cheaper than a bullet”, after we’ve just witnessed the massive mistreatment of the aliens. These hint at an unreality created about the situation that is presented to the public. This makes for a wonderful parallel to Wikus himself, who, we come to realise is still human, underneath the pencil pusher – and even then, it is because of, not in spite of, the monstrous way in which see him behave. It just takes a whole lot of prawns for him to learn how to behave with some true humanity.

Edited to add: I realise I don't bring up the more obvious ways in which District 9 acts as a metaphor - for racism, segregation and apartheid. I haven't mentioned it as I believe it's fairly obvious that District 9 takes inspiration from such events, and I'm sure it's been written about better elsewhere.

GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra (Sommers, 2009)

2009-08-06T21:09:00.002Z

There’s no doubting that GI Joe is meant to be a Big Dumb Movie. I enjoy Big Dumb Movies (probably little too much...I enjoyed Doom, for crying out loud). I can’t say that I’d been especially excited for GI Joe, knowing nothing of the toys or the media franchises, but thought it certainly looked pretty dumb. Then, out of nowhere, positive responses start appearing online and suddenly I wonder if maybe this could be a rare beast – a Big Dumb Movie that’s actually good.

The answer to that is no, it isn’t a Big Dumb Movie that’s good. It’s big, certainly, and very, very dumb. I know that films like that aren’t designed to have their glossy surfaces scratched, but if the film isn’t entertaining me, then that’s what I’ll do – and I won’t like what I find. Before I get to my major gripe with the film – the portrayal of women – there’s plenty else to complain about.

For an action movie, there’s not as much action as one would hope. There’s far too much dull exposition about characters you end up not caring about anyway, and this exposition is often presented through awful, terribly-timed flashbacks. Aside from a few scattered moments and the great sequence set in Paris, the action itself is pretty dull too. Additionally, although the lengthy Paris-based set-piece is the most entertaining part of the film, the end of the sequence is clearly seen in trailers for the film, so you wonder where the tension is.

The acting and the script is fairly damn dire, but GI Joe is hardly the place for Oscar-worthy performances or writing. Amongst some rubbish leads – Channing Tatum, Sienna Miller – and the hamming of Christopher Ecclestone, Dennis Quaid and even Joseph Gordon-Levitt, I was surprised to find a talented supporting cast – Jonathan Pryce, Saïd Taghmaoui – which of course goes to waste. There are several questionable accents in the film, but perhaps most baffling of all is Jonathan Pryce playing the US President with his British accent intact.

So, I’ve established that the acting, script and action is all disappointing, but what was genuinely making me angry while watching the film was the portrayal of its two female leads – Ana, played by Sienna Miller, and Scarlett, played by Rachel Nichols. I can overlook the more obvious, expected gender inequalities – their skin-tight uniforms, their impractical hair, their one-liners about shoes – however, these two characters just plain bothered me. To begin with, Ana is a primary antagonist, having been in a serious relationship with Channing Tatum’s Duke, who had promised to protect her brother in the army. Duke failed and her brother died, and she is now kicking his ass, stealing WMDs, and married to a scientist for the purposes of her mission. Scarlet, on the other hand, is all brain and no emotion, spurning the advances of Duke’s army buddy Ripcord because she believes that emotions ‘don’t exist because they can’t be quantified’.

Let’s just start here, shall we? So, Ana is now evil all because her fiancé couldn’t face her after her brother died. And the only reason Scarlett is turning down romance is because she’s just such a brainiac? Pardon me if I find these starting points a little weak – god forbid Ana should be a bad guy just because she feels like it, or that Scarlett isn’t interested in romance because she’s just plain not interested. But wait! This actually isn’t so bad.

(Here be spoilers!) At the end of the film, we discover Ana’s brother is not dead, and has in fact become a megalomaniac, and injected Ana with technology in order to get her to work for the evil Cobra organization. Naturally, she snaps out of this, remembering her love for Duke and she’s heroically rescued by him – carried away in his arms and all - when her evil brother almost kills her. In other words, for all Ana’s apparent femme fatale-ness (her aggressive use of sexuality to meet her own ends, her belief in a cause, her apparent comfort with murder), her entire story is controlled by the men around her. Nice. Meanwhile, Scarlet barely even gets to spend any time being the emotionless brainiac, as she soon simply becomes the brainiac who falls for the comedy side-kick, and turns out to actually be quite useless at doing anything else other than tagging along on missions, despite the fact that she’s the best marks(wo)man amongst them.

It would certainly have been nice to have Ana snap out of her evil brother’s control to still be angry with Duke for being unable to face her after he though her brother had died, and for Scarlet to not fall for the charmless man pursuing her (I’m all for sexual tension, don’t get me wrong, but come on).

I’ll repeat what I said earlier, though – I know films like this aren’t meant to be read into so deeply, but if the film isn’t entertaining me enough that my mind starts thinking about these sorts of things, that’s the filmmakers’ problem, not mine.

GI Joe very blatantly sets the stage for a sequel – I sincerely hope the inevitable franchise to come has some considerable changes made to it. It’ll take a lot to get me back in front of a GI Joe movie.

Twlight (Hardwicke, 2008)

2008-12-19T22:36:00.002Z

Going to watch the potential 'new Harry Potter'* on opening night was, perhaps, not the wisest choice. Lo and behold, there were the hordes of teenage girls, giggling and chattering beforehand. Fine, I'm all for getting excited before seeing a film for the first time, I do the same. The cheering when the film begins...mildly annoying in a public screening (personally), but fine, I can live with that. The incessant chattering for a lot of the rest of the film? Initially highly irritating.

However, this turned out to be beneficial, as it meant that I and my friend could get away with making our own commentary, so that we could actually be entertained while watching the film. Twlight is, alas, a little bit dull.

For the first hour or so (it may have been less than an hour - it certainly felt like an hour) the very boring Bella is established as our heroine, as is her instant attraction to the bizarre Edward Cullen. There is never much to pay attention to past the longing glances and terrible dialogue. I had to surpress my own giggling at several unintentionally funny points.

Once the film gets going, it improves, although it's still difficult to get past dialogue as wooden as the wirework. This is a shame, as the performers are all good enough, with Robert Pattinson, although not perfect, showing massive potential to be a very convincing and charming leading man in bigger and better films. There are very enjoyable secondary characters - Dr. Cullen and James spring to mind - and just enough excitement to keep things going (until everything following the climax, mind).

Hardwicke's direction is nicely done and not too distracting, although some aspects which may have worked in the book don't seem to come across so well on screen - the vampires' glistening skin, some of the vampiric enhanced abilities (like running up trees!).

It's easy to see why Twilight has such a large following. What was irritating on one level as a cinema go-er was interesting as someone who is a self-proclaimed fandomer. Seeing (well, hearing) the responses of people massively invested in what this film is based upon was fascinating as someone who has experience of the same, but no knowledge of the subject at hand. There's no doubting the film franchise will be as popular as the books, and probably introduce many more to them. However, personally, I find it quite difficult to see it as being particularly long-lasting beyond teenagedom**.

There's just about enough in Twlight to make me want to see its sequels - on DVD. And I can only hope that Bella becomes a far less needy, irritating and dull heroine by those films.

*This categorization irritates me - just because something has a pre-existing fandom doesn't mean it's the 'new Harry Potter'. Harry Potter is still on-going, it doesn't need a replacement, and new franchises sure as hell don't need to be burdened with comparisons to it. The Boy Who Lived is not the be-all and end-all of book-to-film fandom.

**This no doubt sounds ridiculous coming from a (slightly diminished) Harry Potter fan, but I'd actually love to hear how adult fans of the series define what it is that they enjoy, because I am quite clearly, ignorant in the ways of Twlight.

The Strangers (Bertino, 2008)

2008-09-04T21:51:00.002Z

I think there's a chance that people who don't normally go see horror films might find this film scary all the way through. Anyone who has seen more than, oh, I don't know, three decent horror films, won't.

The premise is simple - a couple in an isolated home are terrorized by three masked individuals. Hardly original, but plenty of room for a filmmaker to make their own mark. Alas, these film makers did not. The film starts with a 'based on real events' spiel and starts at the end - the discovery of a scene of horrific crime. So far, so 70s.

Then, we get to meet the poor, unfortunate couple who will end up the victims of that crime. Now, I confess I can't stand Liv Tyler in the slightest, but her character was not endearing in the slightest to me. Scott Speedman fares slightly better, but after 15 minutes of exposition and making us 'care' (hmm, not quite) for our protagonists, I was seriously itching for something to actually happen.

And when it finally did, the tension did rise. There are some good jumps and a decent atmosphere of dread...but no pay off. The director relies so heavily on sound and music to create any semblance of fear that you wonder if anything will actually happen at all. After several SCARY MUSIC CUES, the following five million SCARY MUSIC CUES become no more than irritatingly predictable. It doesn't help either when what should've been a very creepy early moment was rendered useless by the fact that it's the damn poster for the film.

Even with the film's naturally brief running time, it feels laboured. What the film promises to be a brutal climax falls short - if you're going to set up brutal slasher-movie stabbing, deliver it, please. It's nice that the three strangers remained mostly faceless even having removed their masks, but to me it continued to dehumanise very human monsters. And the final scene? Cheaper than cheap, and not scary.

Personally, I didn't like the direction. The annoying attempts at simulated hand-held shots felt forced. If Bertino wanted his film to feel real, he should've filmed the whole damn thing that way and with a handheld camera, not mix it up with polished shooting and cutting.

Scary masks were done far more effectively by El Orfanto and hell, Batman Begins. Supposedly, a sequel to the film is in the works, with the hope of launching a Saw-like franchise. Um, no thank you. The Strangers lacks the vaguely interesting characters and actual scares needed to sustain one, 85-minute film, never mind a franchise.

The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (Cohen, 2008)

2008-09-03T19:43:00.002Z

When you go into a film expecting bad and end up getting worse, you hope that actors as cool as Jet Li got a damn fat pay cheque for lending their talents to it.

I am known for enjoying some crappy films. I like big, dumb action and big, dumb stories, but the third installment of this franchise is both big and dumb but so devoid of character or fun that it fails in every respect.

One good thing about the film: Yetis. They're cute and I want one as a pet - however, I'm not sure this was intended, but heck, they should be glad that there was at least one creature to root for in the film.

The lack of chemistry between everyone in the film is one of its biggest problems. That there is more chemistry between John Hannah and yak he shares a seat with than between any of the other couples or pairings in the film says a lot. Maria Bello is a fine actress but is woefully wrong as Evie - there's an obvious reason Rachel Weisz did not sign on to appear again. There is zero chemistry between Evie and Rick, even once their 'passion' for each other has been rekindled by the spirit of adventure. Their son, who has mysteriously become an American, is subjected to an implausible and charmless love interested (who has so much potential to be a cool character it hurts to see her fall short).

The only real moment of chemistry is when Jet Li and the fabulous (but underused) Michelle Yeoh face-off in the one decent set piece of the film. For a film boasting two kung fu heroes, the action is particularly dull and stilted, on a small and large scale. Neither army is that impressive, no battle is enthralling; there is simply nothing on display to excite or entertain.

The dialogue is terrible, the acting worse, the score distracting...but the set design was quite nice. Set design, and some cute CGI yeti. That's all this film's got going for it.

The X-Files: I Want to Believe (Carter, 2008)

2008-08-03T20:54:00.002Z

At long last, The X-Files returns, 6 years since the show ended and a whopping 10 years after the first film. Needless to say, I'm a massive fan and so am ever so slightly biassed about this film. However, I will try very hard to provide a balanced look at what's a very risky outing.

With very little of the film's plot revealed beforehand, even the most die-hard followers of The X-Files are in for a surprise when they see the film. I was. With what little information I had, I was completely off the mark with how I thought the Mulder/Scully dynamic would be. As much as I didn't mind the scenario I had imagined, I've never been happier to be wrong.

This would appear to have been in an attempt to attract newcomers to the phenomenon. Emphasis has been placed on the film's 'stand alone' nature in relation to the TV series and conspiracy-based first film. For the casual viewer or newcomer IWTB is a decent thriller. A casual viewer might be surprised by the concentration on character than action, and I fear that won't sit well with a lot of people who go see the film.

As a fan, though, this film is something else. I've seen it three times (and planning on seeing it once, maybe twice more tomorrow) and the thing that continues to strike me most is how much the film is for the fans. Never mind that it's standalone, never mind that it's accessible - this is a $35 million love letter to a group of the most dedicated people in the world. There are in-jokes galore, references to episodes (without being alienating - pardon the pun) and an end-credits sequence which is so damn surreal it works.

Stars David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson are a massive and essential part of this. Their chemistry hasn't changed one bit, and it ignites the screen as effectively as it ever did. The film shows us a very different Mulder and Scully, but they are nonetheless challenging to each other still. They bring the emotion and trueness to the story which is really about them. The paranormal element seems almost like a subplot, in a rare move which has the film focus on character than action and for me, it works.

The secondary characters seem assembled from the most random selection of actors - Billy Connelly, Amanda Peet and rapper Xzibit - but they all perform well. Connelly has the most to do, but Peet and Xzibit do their best which what are essentially simple characters. The supporting cast is a treat, full of past X-Files stars, many of whom are instantly recognisable. Most exciting of all - the one which has elicited either loud cheers or silent squeals each time - is Mitch Pileggi as Walter Skinner, even if his appearance is an extended cameo.

This is all testament to the brilliance of Chris Carter and Frank Spotnitz, who have constantly been appreciative of their fan support. Carter's direction is as tight and as exciting as any of the other summer blockbusters, which is impressive considering the film's apparent disintrest with big action set-pieces. The duo's love for these characters is clear.

Completing the feel of this film is Mark Snow's unsurprisingly wonderful score, feeling just like the TV show only big enough for the big screen. Included on the soundtrack is the song 'Broken' by Unkle, which has lyrics which are as applicable to the film as they are to whole fan experience.

So, this film might not be perfect. There're a few dud lines of dialogue. It might be a bit slow to someone not as invested in the characters as others. But I surely don't care, and I'm not sure other fans will either. The film's weakest point has been it's marketing - what very little marketing there has been has promoted the film as an action blockbuster. It's not. It's a suspenseful paranormal sci-fi drama. It's a slow burn about a pair of wonderful characters, who are just like old friends to a hell of a lot of people. For fans, it's all about the love.

The Dark Knight (Nolan, 2008)

2008-07-24T23:19:00.002Z

To describe this film in one word is easy: wow.

This film is big, it's loud, it's harsh, but it's also reflective, deep and twisted. Featuring a plethora of heroes as conflicted as its villains, the film is as complex as it is visually entertaining.

This is block-busting cinema at it's finest. Every face punched, engine revved and building blown up is as exciting as the last, but the film is dark. It's incredibly violent, made even more unnerving by its lack of explicitness. The film has no happy ending - the Joker really does win, as we see our heroes become more and more engulfed by shadow.

And so, the Joker. A role that has drawn so much attention following the untimely death of Heath Ledger, and what a role it is. By far the powerhouse of the film, Ledger's performance is so massive, so immense, that it's easy to see how it would have become all-consuming. Every inch of him is the Joker - he twitches, he blinks, he pokes out his tongue in an absolute embodiment of a highly disturbing, yet highly attractive, character.

But to sing the highest of high praises for Ledger is not to detract from the rest of the cast. Christian Bale and Aaron Eckhart provide fantastic foils for Ledger. Christian Bale utterly owns the roles of Bruce Wayne and of Batman, wonderfully portraying the conflict that drives the film. Equally Eckhart, as District Attorney Harvey Dent, provides an equally effective hero as he does, later, villain.

Nolan's vision of Gotham city is a wonder to behold. While less grimy than in Batman Begins, it somehow feels scarier. The film's more intimate scenes are handled with as much talent and creative flair as the visually stunning action sequences. Pile on top of this a superb score by Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard and this film nears perfection.

It's not perfect, though. It does feel somewhat meandering - there are lots of twists and plot threads that don't appear to tie together, but this, fortunately, does not make the film any less coherant.

Next week, I'll be seeing this film on an IMAX screen. Considering how big this film feels on a regular screen, I'm preparing myself to be truly blown away.

Wall-E (Stanton, 2008)

2008-07-18T21:37:00.003Z

Anyone who knows me will know that I have been anxiously awaiting the arrival of Wall-E for a long time. For months I've been telling everyone how amazing the film will be - the teaser trailer had me in tears, and with each and every snippet released to promote the film my expectations grew higher and higher. This was it: the film that could possibly become my new all-time favourite, a film so cute it'd make me teeth rot and I wouldn't care. Of course, people kept telling me - it'll disappoint! Don't expect too much!

Absolute rubbish. My sky-high expectations were met, beaten to the ground, piled higher and trampled on. This film, to me, is utter, utter perfection. However, I will admit that I'm finding it very difficult to think about the film in a critical way - the fact that the characters are so damn cute, the message is one that I feel so strongly about and that there's one Kubrick reference that's so genius it floored me, the film's flaws fall on rather blind eyes.

So, I will try to pick them out. Once the actual plot of the film gets going, it all does seems a little thin and a little rushed. Once characters appear who, y'know, talk, their dialogue is a little bit wonky. And...

...yeah, that's all I've got. In a film as stunningly beautiful as this, I'm finding it very hard to find fault.

Wall-E himself is an utter triumph of design and character. That an animated machine conveys more emotion than so many of his human counterparts is simply stunning. Each and every twitch of his eyes or whir of his cogs is made to make us feel everything he does. And it's not a simple case of: "look, cute robot, aaaw!" - he's a fully-developed character. He's kind-hearted, intelligent, practical, lonely, hopeful, caring...utterly, utterly lovable.

Thankfully, Wall-E is not the only one so wonderfully brought to life. Eve, the robot he falls for, has completed my trinity of feminist icons - Dana Scully and Eowyn of Rohan being the other two. It's not just because she packs a wicked gun - Eve works hard. Nothing will stand in the way of her directive - and what an important one it is! - but that doesn't mean she's not a dreamer. Left alone on Earth to scan for life, she relishes the freedom. It takes meeting Wall-E, the most heart-breakingly lonely character in cinema, for her to realise her own loneliness, that sometimes there are things more important than directives.

That I so completely and utterly related to two computer-generated robotic characters is baffling and only a slightly worrying reflection of myself. Wall-E and Eve aren't just about the angst or the romance, they're about the funny too. Joined later by a gang of robots - Mo being the most adorably memorable - their innocence and playfulness lead to some wonderfully funny moments.

So far, I've not even mentioned the animation. Pixar have utterly outdone themselves. From the bleak landscape of Earth to the sleek designs of the Axiom, the animation is faultless. Some sequences could easily be from any other big-budget effects movie. The use of music and sound in the film is vital - there's virtually no dialogue for about the first thirty minutes - and Thomas Newman's score is wonderful. Of course, it goes without saying that Ben Burtt's chirps and beeps are glorious.

Best of all about Wall-E is that it's a kids' film for adults, an adult world made for children. A film both sweet and terrifying all at once, the combination of innocence lost and found is makes for an incredibly moving piece of cinema. In addition to the little robots making cute, the cinematic references are wonderful. When the Axiom's Captain takes his first steps on legs that humans have forgotten how to use - all to the sounds of Also Sprach Zarathustra - I wanted to stand up and cheer.

Like I said, reviewing the film is difficult, because I'm struggling to get past that "blub, blub, oh god the cute, blub, blub" stage of things, but I don't really care how much my hyperbole makes me sound uncritical. Wall-E deserves all the praise it receives - for creative bravery, for social commentary, for pure romance and cuteness - cinema does not get much better than this.

The Forbidden Kingdom (Minkoff, 2008)

2008-07-13T19:12:00.002Z

The Forbidden Kingdom surpassed all my expectations for it - I was looking forward to a fun film with some cool fights. That's definitely what I got, but the film, although outwardly generic, was a lot more satisfying than I would've hoped for.

Primarily this film is about the fight scenes, which are beautifully choreograhped, as expected, by Yuen Woo-Ping. The face-off between Jackie Chan and Jet Li more than pays off in what is one of the most breathtaking sequences in an action movie that I've seen for a good while. There's nothing particularly new here, but the fight sequences are riveting.

Chan and Li are both superb, and even if this was a vehicle for the two of them to star together, they are perfectly cast as their - various - characters. Li gets to show off both a serious and a playful side to his art, Chan excells as the comic core of the film, while also providing the film with its most emotional content.

The characters may be quite cliched, but that's the nature of the story. It's a myth, a fable - the only character I was worried about no working was Jason, but he works brilliantly. Despite this being a story of American boy falls into Ancient China, the film doesn't fall into the trap of making him a) annoying or b) all-knowing. Jason succeeds because of what he learns in the Forbidden Kingdom, and not through anything he already knew from his own world.

Similarly, there are certain story threads - most notably Sparrow's story - that could have been handled in a horribly Hollywood-type way. Thankfully, this doesn't happen, and while, of course, the film is a nice, shiny big-budget production, it never gives away its heart and is a much better film for it.

The film isn't original, but it succeeds in entertaining and engaging from the outset to its end. The characters are colourful, the spectacle impressive and importantly the film has just the right amount of heart to make a perfectly light fantasy adventure. The people of Narnia could learn a thing or two from this film - warmth and a sense of humour really elevate this film beyond mediocrity.

Hancock (Berg, 2008)

2008-07-03T22:52:00.002Z

The trailers and marketing for Hancock all quite clearly identify the film as an action-comedy, stars Will Smith and Jason Batemen further cementing the impression. However, Hancock is vastly different to this, and I'd say for the better.

Personally, I'd label Hancock a very funny action-drama. There is no evil mastermind, no end-of-the-world and a thoroughly un-super hero. Will Smith is, as expected, wonderful in the title role, pre- and post-reformation. Alcoholic, bad-tempered John Hancock is an absolute hoot who is easy to root for despite the bad attitude.

That this is a film about people and not about heroics is clear - from Hancock himself to PR Guru Ray's impressionistic son. The set pieces and action are visually brilliant, but are caused and driven by the very individual characters and situations, rather than any grand scale world-dominating supervillain.

The 'mythology' the film introduces does sit a little uneasily, despite being a nice idea. The twist, although enjoyable, never quite makes total sense. The film's ending is touching, Hancock's arc being nicely played out. Charlize Theron's character is a lot more difficult to understand, but not to the extent of ruining the relationship that exists between them.

Hancock might be better in conception than in execution, but the film is highly enjoyable, very funny and importantly very different. Perhaps Will Smith the comedian has been tempered by Will Smith: Serious Actor, and in Hancock this works absolutely for the better.

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (Adamson, 2008)

2008-07-03T21:24:00.002Z

Only three years have passed since the previous and first installment of The Chronicles of Narnia, but I'd hazard a guess that that's about two years too late for Prince Caspian not to fall a little short.

Cinema has been rather saturated by children's 'epic' fantasy films in the interim - Eragon and The Golden Compass most notably - few of which have lived up to the giddy heights of Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter. Although Narnia is lucky to have a highly recogniseable and marketable name, I think it would have done better to have been produced/released sooner.

Having said this, Prince Caspian is a solid, entertaining film, just like its predecessor. It just lacks that certain something that has made a franchise such as Harry Potter so successful. I dare say this is due to the rather less substantial story, but it's not all C S Lewis' fault.

There's nothing really that exciting about Narnia - yes, that battles are impressive enough and the landscapes breathtaking, but it's all so very twee. These battles needn't be blood-drenched, but there is a distinct lack of grime that makes it all a little too choreographed to be truly heart-stopping.

The characters are just as bad - lovely though they are, the Pevensies are just. so. boring. Edmund is the most interesting of the lot and he is sorely underused. Prince Caspian himself makes for wonderful eyecandy, but his dodgy accent and unconvincing angst don't help him rise to anything more than just that. The villains are suitably villainous but nothing we've seen before. Narnia does have talking animals which are convincing, at least - Reepicheep and Trufflehunter are fabulous (and are quite possibly more exciting than the children...).

But really, I'm nitpicking. Prince Caspian does what it should - it entertains. The film goes on for too long with too little to fill the time, but regardless it is distraction enough that certainly, for me at least, leaves a longing for a portal to appear to a magical world of my own. Of course, it doesn't really take much to get me wanting that.

Teeth (Lichtenstein, 2007)

2008-06-27T23:43:00.001Z

I could be completely predictable and say this is a film with ‘bite’...but really, I wouldn’t be lying.

Teeth tells the tale of Dawn, a young girl repressing her own sexuality who discovers she is the literal embodiment of vagina dentata after a horrendous sex attack (is there any other kind?). Her discovery leaves her confused but eventually empowered.

Vagina dentata. Sounds like a topic for exploitation cinema to me, but Teeth, while at times very funny and fantastically gross, plays it straight. The balance is right, and I think in no way better exemplified than by the scene of Dawn’s discovery of her secret. She is attacked, and her natural defense mechanism does its thing. Now, penile dismemberment is always going to be funny on the big screen. Between the blood and the screaming and the audience’s shock, the effect is one of laughter. And so Dawn runs back home, and you’re still kinda thinking “haha! that guy had his dick bitten off!” Then Dawn takes a shower and you realise: I’m laughing at the guy for getting what he deserved: you go, girl! – and you remember that she was just raped.

The attacks in the film aren’t funny. Dawn’s own, odd, repression isn’t funny. These aren’t the things that need to be funny – Dawn’s strength of character leads to some funny moments. When she realises that, actually, she can have sex and not go straight to hell for it, we’re happy for her. We’re even happier when the man she chooses to sleep with turns out to be an idiot that suddenly, her secret is her power. And when men lucky enough to survive encounters with Dawn are ultimately humiliated on the operating table – we’re laughing.

The film is disturbing enough, too. The gynacology scene in the film is incredibly difficult to watch, but more subtle is Dawn’s step-brother, Brad, who has clearly developed several complexes* due to Dawn’s secret – before Dawn herself is even aware of it. And when he meets his commupence – we’re laughing, but we really know we shouldn’t be.

Jess Wiexler is fantastic as Dawn, making a character that could’ve come across as incredibly stuck up immensely likeable; the supporting characters are all suitably grey. Michael Lichtenstein skillfully blends more surreal moments with the mostly realistic shooting. Some very simple shots are the most memorable – Dawn in the bath, for example – and a simple score underlines the importance of character to Teeth’s success.

*He owns a female rotweiller named 'Mother' and keeps her in a cage, for crying out loud.

The Happening (Shyamalan, 2008)

2008-06-27T23:42:00.001Z

Considering this film is called 'The Happening'...well, not a lot happens.

I've stuck up for M. Night Shyamalan. I like his work (I've not seen Lady), and while it seems like the majority has had enough of his babble but I've still enjoed his films. Even I can't defend The Happening.

I really like the idea behind this film. The plot of the film is slight at best, but the concept is an interesting one and one I could certainly have enjoyed.

Visually, as well, this worked for me. It's difficult to make trees menacing, but I enjoyed how Shyamalan shot the greenery of the film in such a way that did provide an element of threat.

Having said that, there is pretty much no sense of threat in this film. I don't know if the marketing department of Fox got it all wrong in how they've promoted this film, but the film did not match the marketing. It's pretty obvious why this is.

The script is absolutely terrible and delivered with zero talent. The majority of the actors in this film should be ashamed of themselves. Mark Wahlberg, who impressed me mightily in The Departed, was just ridiclous; he was either acting like an eight year old or a simpleton - and I'm really not sure which. Zooey Deschanel should never work in film again EVER for the simply terrible performance she gives. The characters are so flat that any attempts at emotional content (of which there's lots) are just utterly pointless.

The best performances come from John Leguizamo - whose involvement in the film is far too brief, but probably for the best - and Betty Buckley, who appears in the most effective sequence of the film.

In the house with Mrs. Jones, alone, would have made a brilliant piece of filmmaking. Her character is the most subtley characterised of the entire film (which granted isn't saying much) and is more frightening than any other aspect of the film. The 20 minutes or so spent in her house is the most effective and genuinely good part of the film.

There are a few other decent jumps and scares in the film, but these are fleeting, and pretty much depends on the visual. Considering this is Shyamalan's first R-rated film, there is little gore. I actually admire Shyamalan for cutting away from the more grisly deaths, and yet sticking with what probably pushed the film into the higher rating (not to spoil but it involves kids). In a film that it's pretty much this dull, I think any additional gore would actually have made it worse and not more interesting.

A disappointment, then, that's for sure. I think it's time Shyamalan passed his ideas on to someone else and directed a script not his own.

The Incredible Hulk (Leterrier, 2008)

2008-06-27T23:40:00.000Z

Marvel making in-house movies could quite possibly be one of the best moves for blockbuster comic book movies.

Inferior to Iron Man but still utterly entertaining, this film suffers only from a weaker script, less charming characters and the incredibly talentless Liv Tyler.

Tim Roth is brilliant as Blonsky and Tim Blake Nelson as Dr. Sterns is a fabulous secondary character. The Robert Downey Jr cameo is as satisfying and thrilling as expected. Also Stan Lee, as usual, is hilarious :D

Nice nods to the TV show in here too - Lou Feringo has a cameo, as well as use of the 'walking away' music, mwahaha! Nice joke about the purple pants, too! Nice little references for fans (I had to look these up, lol) in there, just like with Iron Man - like the 'demise' of Dr. Sterns.

Marvel are brilliantly setting up their series of films to come. I think these films are getting middling reviews from people but they are strong origin stories and as a whole, assuming this level of awesome continues, could form a brilliant movie saga.

Bring on Thor and Captain America :D

In Defense of Aliens in Indy IV

2008-06-27T23:39:00.000Z

In many of the reactions I've seen to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I've noticed people range from surprised to dismayed at the inclusion of aliens and the paranormal in the series.

Personally, I don't see the problem, and while it was definitely a brave move, to me, it's a move that makes sense. So, we've got an archaeologist-adventurer now in the 50s, the height of the Cold War.

1) There are plenty of theories that wonder if ancient civilisations were founded by extra-terrestrial beings, so surely an archaeologist would be familiar with this.

2) This is set 10 years after Roswell and when flying saucer sightings were prominent and gaining attention...

3) ...and a theory as to why aliens were suddenly so interested in us? Because we were now nuclear...

4) ...a big part of the Cold War, along with the space race.

To me, it makes sense that aliens would be a considered and chosen option for Indiana Jones. Granted, some parts may have been over the top and verging on silly, but really, like Nazi faces melting off isn't silly?

Yes, it helps that I'm a great big dirty UFO believer, but whatever...

10,000BC (Emmerich, 2008)

2008-06-27T23:37:00.001Z

I wanted to like this film. It looked big, dumb and stupid, and I like that sort of thing. I wasn't expecting historical accuracy and I wasn't expecting plot. However, I wasn't expecting the film to suck beyond all belief, either.

The film didn't entertain me, at all. The highlight of the film were the wonderfully rendered woolly mammoths, which were super cool. However, most of the rest of the film the visuals are terrible, which is pretty stupid for a big effects movie. There's far too much talking (complete with really bad accents and acting) for this to work as a big dumb movie.

So, because I wasn't being entertained, my mind set out to entertain itself, by evidently reading far more into the film than the filmmakers probably did, which led to my leaving the cinema offended as both a female and as someone with non-Caucasian blood in me. I could sum-up this film as "We macho Americans love you coloured folk, but are better than you and definitely don't like Arab-types. Oh, and women are useless."

The main heroic tribe is all-white, despite the dreads and the war paint. They lead a group of many different dark-skinned tribes in an all-out attack on a bunch of Arab-looking people, who fancy themselves gods. Oh, and the tribesmen are all MACHO and MANLY whilst the EVIL people are all bejewelled and prance around with long fingernails.

I could go on, but really, then I'd definitely be thinking about it more than the people who made it. My point it, I wouldn't really notice or be bothered by any of the above if the film had done its job and entertained me. I liked 300 and that smacks of underhand racism, and while I think this film is trying to be the kiddie-friendly 300 - historically-inaccurate (but it doesn't matter) throwback to how they used to make 'em - it fails utterly in having good bits to compensate for the bad. Where 300 is based on a comic and doesn't pretend to be anything else (hammy dialogue included), 10,000 BC actually fancies itself a serious film and really should've placed that tongue in its cheek.

Erm, anyway. Rant over, honest. Rent this film on DVD if you fancy a few laughs.

Murder Set Pieces (Palumbo, 2004)

2008-06-27T23:18:00.001Z

Okay, the BBFC banned "Murder Set Pieces" from being released on DVD in the UK (it wasn't up for being released theatrically).

Having just watched it, I support their decision.

While the individual sequences alone were not particularly offensive by comparison to other films, but the number of sequences and the sheer lack of plot to support their inclusion renders them pointless, making them in opposition to the BBFC's (mostly reasonable) guidelines.

Certain scenes are disturbing, primarily ones involving children. Though not *too* graphic, their context and implication makes them distasteful. I would say they add nothing to the plot, but there's no plot in the first place.

Controversy aside, the film is terribly acted, terribly directed, even more terribly edited and the score is...really terrible.

There is one moment at the film's climax that is pretty good (by comparison to the rest of the film), but that moment dies as quickly as this film's credibility died following the opening credits.

Even if you disagree with censorship or the banning of films, the BBFC should be commended for not subjecting the UK to this utterly crappy film.

reboot.

2008-06-27T23:15:00.000Z

Take 2.

The Pursuit of Happyness (2006)

2007-01-22T20:52:00.001Z

This film is a sweet story of one man’s struggle against the odds. It makes for easy viewing and is only dragged out of Sunday-afternoon lightness by the superior performance of its star, Will Smith.

This would be a far inferior film if it weren’t for Smith’s natural charm and likeability. Whereas lesser actors would’ve over-played the high emotional content, Smith knows exactly when subtlety is the better option. Praise must go to Smith’s son, Jayden, acting alongside his father on screen. A cute kid without a single annoying moment, which is refreshing.

Other than the acting, this film is fluff, but fluff that consciously pushes the right buttons. While probably a film too obviously sweet for many a tooth, this film kept me thoroughly entertained.

7/10

Appypolly loggies.

2007-01-21T20:03:00.000Z

Okay, I suck, I know.

Sorry for not updating this blog more frequently. It's not because I'm not watching films, it's because I'm lazy.

That and I do other stuff too. So, I'm going to make future film reviews shorter and more to the point, unless it's a film I feel particularly strongly about and I feel the need to elaborate.

I'm hoping to catch up with films I've seen recently over the next few days, so look out for new posts.

Nia :)

Casino Royale (2006)

2006-11-17T02:01:00.000Z

The 21st James Bond movie has been the focus of much media attention, primarily due to the fact that it’s the first outing for Daniel Craig as the hero, taking over the role from Pierce Brosnan. Though there have been very vocal protestations about this casting choice, he is surely the best thing about the film.

Casino Royale takes us back to Bond’s early days, when he has only just received his liscense to kill. Already he is causing trouble for M and getting to travel to exotic locations with beautiful women. It is his task to win a high-stakes poker game, to prevent a banker from using the winnings to fund terrorism.

Daniel Craig creates a Bond all for himself – still confident, still arrogant, but we see a glimmer of vulnerability beneath the 007 veneer. Quite why anyone doubted him in the first place, I cannot grasp, but he effortlessly looks the part, while having the massive acting talent to match. Eva Green makes a formidable and alluring Bond girl, helping add to what was a more emotional story than seems to be the usual with Bond. Mads Mikkelsen makes a suitably sneering villain.

Martin Campbell returns to the helm and doesn’t disappoint. The action is spectacular and truly push the boundaries of the film’s 12A rating. One sequence in particular genuinely shocked me, and made me wonder that had it been a woman in Bond’s place, the age restriction would have been far stricter. The action is engaging and moves at a break-neck pace, and is nicely interjected with moments of humour and emotion.

There is a segment toward the end of the film that made me completely lose interest, regain it, and then lose it again, only to be blown away by a magnificent, albeit expected, scene. The story contains many twists, as expected, although they become slightly more confusing than necessary by the end of the film.

This is a fresh, exciting approach to a long-running and much-loved franchise. I can only hope that Daniel Craig returns for many more adventures as 007.

8/10

Ladies in Lavender (2004)

2006-07-17T11:49:00.000Z

Charles Dance’s gentle drama is a fine showcase for two of the world’s best actresses – Judi Dench and Maggie Smith. It is the dames that make this a film worth watching.

The film tells s the tale of two sisters living in 1930’s Cornwall, who discover a young man washed up on the beach. They nurse him back to health and discover he has a talent for playing the violin. The story is thin and so it takes until half-way through the film for it to become truly engaging. Despite this, the strong performances keep us interested during the film’s duller moments.

Judi Dench and Maggie Smith both shine in their roles. Dame Judi gets the meatier of the roles, as the sister who is most affected by the stranger’s arrival. Daniel Brühl is charming as the stranger and equally strong support is provided by Miriam Margoyles as the sisters’ maid.

The direction is at times a little jarring – some strange use of slow motion, for example, but overall it’s a strong first effort from Charles Dance. Dance makes the best of the lush scenery, which adds greatly to the film’s look and feel.

Naturally, music features heavily in the film and the violin pieces chosen are beautiful. They’re masterfully played by Joshua Bell on the soundtrack, while Daniel Brühl plays along perfectly on film.

This film is perfect viewing for a lazy Sunday afternoon - not too exciting and not too taxing on the grey matter, but enjoyable nonetheless.

6/10

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)

2006-07-08T00:40:00.000Z

The first Pirates of the Caribbean movie was a massive success which has managed to spawn two sequels, no doubt in order to make as much money as possible from a very popular character.

Overall, the look of the film is fantastic. There are some darker moments, which better portray the harsh nature of life at sea compared to The Curse of the Black Pearl. Gore Verbrinski handles the direction particularly well during the film’s many action sequences.

The film’s main problem is that it is just too long. Dead Man’s Chest proves that Captain Jack Sparrow is indeed the soul of this franchise. It is Jack that drives the film, Jack that keeps the viewer engaged. Dead Man’s Chest suffers, because, at 2.5 hours long, too much time is spent on other characters. Some characters are brought back from the first to good effect, whilst others make you wonder why they bothered. The fact that the film feels far too drawn out and over-long is a shame, because it taints some of the better moments that are had at the end of the film.

Despite this, there’s no denying that the film is very funny. Johnny Depp yet again pulls off the comedy with ease, seemingly even more at home with his character. Keira Knightley plays a good straight man (or rather woman), even though I’m still not particularly fond of her character. Orlando Bloom was distractingly wooden at times, but what else is to be expected?

Some of the action sequences I felt tried too hard to be bigger and better than the ones in the previous film, only to their own detriment. Naturally, sequences of their nature need to be taken with a pinch of salt, but some required a handful.

The music to the film was this time in the hands of the master, Hans Zimmer, having been in the capable hands of his protégé, Klaus Bladelt, for The Curse of the Black Pearl. The highly memorable themes by Bladelt are used again to good effect. There are times when the score does feel like Zimmer-does-Shore, but nonetheless the music flows well with the film.

The film’s ending makes for a wonderful cliffhanger and introduced a turn of events that I am most pleased with. Overall, the film is one worth seeing, but suffers in part because of its length. Hopefully, the third installment in the series will improve on this.

7/10

The Village (2004)

2006-05-24T19:59:00.000Z

M Night Shyamalan’s fourth film follows the successes of his first three films, the last of which, Signs, was met with less enthusiasm than his debut and follow-up. The Village, however, is a definite return to form for the writer-director.

The story is set in a secluded village, whose inhabitants live in fear of ‘those we do not speak of’, mysterious creatures who inhabit the nearby forest. The film is primarily a thriller, but within this is a tale of romance too. The two genres sit comfortably together, neither ever feeling out of place.

The film’s impressive cast is on absolutely top form here. Joaquin Phoenix is mesmerising as the quiet but courageous Lucius Hunt. William Hurt brings both authority and heart to the role of the village leader. Most impressive of all is Bryce Dallas Howard as the heroine of the film, Ivy. She brings both strength and vulnerability to a wonderful character. Adrien Brody also shines as the tragic Noah.

Shyamalan’s direction effectively creates an atmosphere of mystery. Most noticeable is the number of occasions when the face of a character cannot be seen while they speak, the camera focussing rather on the back of their head. This helps create the sense of secrecy that is dominant in the film. The film looks exquisite, colours and symbolism used prominently and to great effect. James Newton Howard’s score is haunting, helping add to the atmosphere.

The story itself is cleverly woven and includes a twist in the tale as is usual of a Shyamalan’s recent work. The twist works well, while probably guessed by some viewers, is still an effective turn of events.

Though doubted by many, The Village is a touching and thought-provoking film that is well worth taking the time to see.

8/10

Mission: Impossible III (2006)

2006-05-04T23:31:00.000Z

I thoroughly enjoyed both earlier installments of the Mission: Impossible franchise, even if M:I-2 was rather inferior to its predecessor. For the third installment, JJ Abrams steps into the shoes previously worn by Brian de Palma and John Woo.

Of Abrams’ other work, I’m only familiar with Lost. I’m a big fan of the show so was excited to hear his name attached to this project. He certainly doesn’t disappoint, proving himself to be a wonderful director for the big screen as well as the small screen. There are certain stamps that are similar to his work on Lost, such as the moments in which he chooses to use slow motion. The action is relentless throughout and never becomes dull.

It’s clear Abrams’ has decided to add a more emotional dimension to the film compared to its predecessors and he succeeds in this aspect because it never becomes out of place. The emotional story never over-powers the action, which is the point of the film. Had the more character-driven elements featured too heavily, it would’ve detracted from the over all product.

Tom Cruise is on fine form once again. I’m not sure how the Catholic Church will react to the world’s most famous Scientologist disguising himself as a priest, however. It’s good to see Ving Rhames still on board, as well as two new additions to Ethan’s team - the very able Jonathan Rhys Meyers and Maggie Q. Philip Seymour Hoffman is wonderful as the villain of the film, where a lesser actor would’ve upped the ham-factor, Hoffman instead plays it straight and with a great deal of menace.

Michael Giacchino’s score is at times annoyingly similar to his music for Lost – the first appearance of his piano theme for this film is very similar to a theme used on the TV show. However, his explosive style and frequent use of scratchy strings lends itself well to the film’s fast pace.

This film is perfect popcorn cinema, both engaging and exciting. Hopefully it hails in a summer season of films that will be just as good.

7/10

The Princess Bride (1987)

2006-04-30T16:34:00.000Z

Even before seeing the film, most people are able to quote its most famous line: ‘Hello! My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die!’ That line, out of context, is either going to conjure up images of action and adventure or of tongue-in-cheek comedy. Luckily, The Princess Bride provides a dizzying mix of both.

A grandfather tells the tale of The Princess Bride to his bed-ridden grandson, who is initially indignant at the prospect of being read a fairytale. The heroine of the tale is Buttercup, who loses her beloved, Westley.

The Princess Bride is a seamless mix of fairytale and comedy, thanks to a cast that performs brilliantly. Cary Elwes is wonderful as the dashing lead, but it is without a doubt Mandy Patinkin’s Inigo Montoya that steals the show. Not only does the character bring comedy to the film; he also brings much needed emotion to it, which is slightly lacking in the central love story. There are several cameos in the film, but Peter Cook’s Impressive Bishop is the most memorable.

The film features plenty of fun action sequences. The duel between Inigo and Westley is particularly exciting, and certainly impressive considering both actors did all the fencing. Part of the film’s charm, by now, lies with its slightly dodgy special effects. I couldn’t help but feel that the filmmakers were probably aware of this, making the Rodents of Unusual Size scene especially funny.

This film is a works brilliantly as a comedy and as a fantasy. Best of all, its humour is highly accessibly, making it a perfect family film for children and adults alike!

8/10

Ice Age: The Meltdown (2006)

2006-04-20T16:42:00.000Z

In the early flurry of CGI feature films, Ice Age was generally perceived as the inferior to the likes of Shrek and Monsters Inc. However, the film had a charm that guaranteed its success. The creators have succeeded in recreating that charm for the second installment.

Having happily settled together as a most unusual herd, Manny, Sid and Diego face new trouble when they discover that the ice is begin to melt and that they must move from their valley in order to survive. Manny is also concerned that he is the last remaining mammoth – that is until he meets Ellie, a mammoth convinced that she is in fact a possum.

The film boasts an impressive cast of voices – Ray Romano, John Leguizamo and Denis Leary return from the original, this time joined by Queen Latifah as Ellie. The unlikely star of the Ice Age franchise does not have a voice (or at least not a coherent one). He is of course Scrat the determined squirrel, who is constantly trying to collect acorns. His role has been increased considerably for this sequel; the filmmakers have evidently picked up on his popularity. This, however, does suffer from most of his segments having already been used as teaser trailers, so many of his moments don’t come as surprises.

The plot is thin, but little else is to be expected from a film aimed at children. However, it is always engaging and entertaining, though this film perhaps has fewer belly laughs than the first. What’s most impressive about the film is the CGI work. At times I found myself almost mesmerised by Scrat’s tail, so detailed and realistic is the rendering.

Ice Age 2 is a heart-warming and funny film worthy of its predecessor. However, let’s hope that they don’t make a third installment, or the filmmakers run the risk of spreading a good thing too thinly.

7/10

The Pink Panther (2006)

2006-04-13T15:56:00.000Z

Any film that remakes a classic is bound to face harsh judgement both critically and from the cinema-going public. I went to see this film expecting the worst but hoping for better. Thankfully, I was pleasantly surprised.

This film is no comedy masterpiece, but it succeeds in providing plenty of laughs throughout. Although the film does suffer from many of its jokes being in the over-played trailer, it still has enough jokes and funny set-pieces to overlook this.

Steve Martin does a fantastic job as Inspector Clouseau, the root of most of the film's humour. The 'hamburger' sequence is one of the funniest things I've seen in a long time; Martin's accent is consistently hilarious throughout. The supporting cast is on fine form considering their thin material - Emily Mortimer is particularly sweet as Nicole. There is one weak point in the acting chain and that is Beyonce Knowles. I had not expected much of her, but she failed to convince, despite the fact that she is, more or less, playing herself.

The film is well paced and effectively fills out its running time. The final scene feels a little unnecessary, but is just about amusing enough to merit its inclusion. Although for the most part the characters are quite 2D, Clouseau naturally being little more than a caricature, the film's obligatory sad moment and romantic moment are both still relatively effective.

Without the humour the film is very weak indeed, but thankfully not a single joke falls flat. All in all, this film is highly enjoyable light entertainment.

6/10

Date Movie (2006)

2006-03-29T20:45:00.000Z

I’m not a fan of romantic comedies, generally speaking. Neither am I fan of ‘teen’ movies or gross-out comedies. From trailers and press coverage, Date Movie is probably the last film anyone would think me likely to sit through. However, two friends were going to see it and invited me along. My expectations were ridiculously low and sadly, not even they were met.

This film is meant to be a parody of romantic comedies. I’m surprised they’ve managed to get away with such blatant false advertising – aren’t parodies supposed to be funny? The set pieces range from disgusting, to stupid, to mildly amusing. I could count the number of times I laughed on one hand. Not only were the individual skits unfunny, as a whole they weren’t particularly coherent, scenes randomly thrown in for the sake of another film reference. So many of the scenes felt completely redundant.

Had the parody been successful, this no doubt could’ve been a funny film, as there is plenty of room to parody romantic comedies. Instead of being observant and witty, this film aims to use the simplest and most ridiculous ‘parody’ cliches. So many of the scenes were so similar to the originals that they barely merit being called parody – a large portion was simple, unfunny mimicry.

The funniest part of this film was a construction worker shooting himself in the head with a nail gun, not five minutes into the film. I only wish I’d done the same.

1/10

The Constant Gardener (2005)

2006-03-27T20:29:00.000Z

The Constant Gardener is part romance, part thriller based on the novel of the same name by John Le Carré. Ralph Fiennes plays a British diplomat who is forced to become a man of action in order to discover the truth about the murder of his wife, played by Rachel Weisz, uncovering a deeper conspiracy the more involved he becomes.

This film wasn’t as I expected. I expected to watch a fast-paced thriller full of political intrigue and plot twists. While all this does feature in the film, it takes a good 45 minutes or so to shift gears. The beginning of the film is slow, exploring the character background and motivation. It is not until the later portion of the film that the story telling becomes linear, making it difficult to follow at times.

The cast is superb, both Fiennes and Weisz proving themselves to be two of Britain’s best actors at the moment. The supporting cast is also strong, featuring some familiar faces such as Bill Nighy and Pete Postlethwaite.

Fernando Meirelles, who shot to fame with City of God, proves once again to be a fine director. The stark contrast between bleak, rain-soaked Britain and bright, colourful Africa is visually striking. The flashbacks are handled well, never becoming too confusing.

The film’s main weakness is its handling of its dual identity – on one hand there is a love story and on the other a thriller. There are times when the two stories seem unbalanced, as though there are two films within the living space of one. The film does feel long at certain points, but in the second half the action is engaging enough to keep the viewer in their seat.

The film’s ending succeeds in being both bleak, yet satisfying, as corruption is uncovered but that does not equal a happy ending. Despite being based on fiction, the film’s plot is based enough in the real world to make the viewer stop and think about its content, which in my mind is always a good thing.

The Constant Gardener is an interesting and engaging film, which suffers only slightly from a slow start. The strong lead performances, masterful direction and interesting plot elevate the film to something more than a generic thriller.

8/10

Hannibal (2001)

2006-03-27T18:43:00.000Z

The Silence of the Lambs is generally considered to be a modern film classic, amongst critics and cinemagoers alike. There was much expectation then when a sequel was released ten years later. The reaction to this new film was far from positive. The general consensus was that Hannibal lacked the intelligence and subtlety of The Silence of the Lambs, opting instead for gratuitous violence and gore. Anthony Hopkins and Frankie Faison returned from the original cast, while Julianne Moore took on the daunting task of filling Jodie Foster’s shoes as Clarice.

As with The Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal is based on Thomas Harris’ novel of the same name. Hannibal, the book, is a very different creature to Silence of the Lambs, the book, so it’s only natural the film is different too. As an adaptation of the novel, the film fails miserably, but this is a very good thing, as an adaptation that stuck more closely to the source material would’ve made a far less enjoyable film. The book’s ending in particular split the fans; personally, I prefer the ending of the film (bar the final scene, which I rather pretend never happened).

It seems to me that Hannibal has been unfairly criticised in the shadow of The Silence of the Lambs. There is no denying that Hannibal is an inferior film, but nonetheless it has its own merits. The cast is still strong. Julianne Moore does a fine job as a very different Clarice to the young woman of Silence of the Lambs. Anthony Hopkins is as wonderful as ever, even if the Dr. Lecter of this film is a hammier character than he was in The Silence of the Lambs. Gary Oldman is suitably insane as the film’s hideously disfigured antagonist, Mason Verger, as Ray Liotta is suitably vile as resident creep, Paul Krendler.

Ridley Scott’s direction is at times beautiful, helped greatly by the stunning scenery of Florence in early sequences. There is much more gore in this film and it does occasionally feel unnecessary – slow motion effects feel over-used in the film’s first major sequence; a gruesome shoot-out. Much of the violence is taken directly from the book, however.

Hans Zimmer’s haunting score is sublime, making use of classical pieces as well as original compositions. The soundtrack also includes an aria specially composed by Patrick Cassidy, Vide Cor Meum, which uses words taken from La Vita Nuova by Dante Aligheri, a figure mentioned often in the film.

All that’s needed to make this film good is to forget about the sheer brilliance of The Silence of the Lambs. Neither particularly demanding nor subtle, the film is a great piece of popcorn-cinema; something some might argue was done with the book. The increased presence of Dr. Lecter himself might be simply to please mass audiences, rather than present a new and original story. Whereas this film is not a prime example of cinema like its predecessor, it is, in its own right, highly enjoyable.

7/10

Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story (2005)

2006-03-26T21:23:00.000Z

The novel ‘The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy’ by Lawrence Sterne is widely considered to be unfilmable. This film is a mockumentary about an attempt at adapting and making a film of the novel. Steve Coogan takes the lead role as himself and as Tristram Shandy. It also stars Rob Brydon as the ‘co-lead’ amongst a whole host of British comedy talent.

The film boasts a wide range of comedy styles, from the integral banter between Coogan and Brydon to the more surreal moments, reminisent in style of ‘Scrubs’, at times. Much of the film’s comedy lies with referencing British pop culture, which probably diminishes some of the funnier moments for foreign audiences. For example, a running joke in the film involves Steve Coogan’s most famous incarnation, Alan Partridge. I’m not sure that those not familiar with the character would get the most out of the joke.

The comedy is not entirely verbal, however. While it is mainly banter, quips and mannerisms that makes the film incredibly funny, the funniest scene had to be one involving a hot chestnut, providing some hilarious visual humour. Much of the supporting cast is firmly rooted in the comedy world, so there’s not a problem of unfunny people in a funny film.

The film is an uplifting one, with Steve Coogan learning some valuable lessons during the shoot of the film. Best of all, these deeper ‘messages’ aren’t in the slightest bit didactic or out of place, rather they are simply the experiences of one man, showcased for us to see. These moments are never overpowering, the very successful comedic aspects being absolutely paramount.

8/10

Walk the Line (2005)

2006-03-13T01:15:00.000Z

I hadn’t originally intended to see Walk the Line at the cinema, thinking that it wouldn’t really interest me. However, a few friends had nothing but good things to say about it, so I decided to give it a go and I’m pleased to say I wasn’t disappointed.

Walk the Line chronicles the life of musician Johnny Cash from his childhood through to his marriage to singer June Carter. Carrying much emotional baggage from his childhood, Johnny makes his own success but also nearly brings about his own downfall by turning to drugs and alcohol.

Joaquin Phoenix shines in the lead role. Much speculation was made about Phoenix’s mental state during filming, due to parallels drawn between Cash’s life and Phoenix’s life, both men losing a brother at a young age. I’m not going to pass comment on speculation, but it’s possible that a similar experience helped Phoenix become Johnny Cash, as the performance he puts in is truly compelling and believable. Reese Witherspoon does a fine job as June Carter, although I didn’t find her performance to be particularly outstanding. I haven’t seen any of the other female performances nominated at this year’s Academy Awards, so I can’t comment on whether or not she deserved to win. The supporting cast is mostly spot-on, Robert Patrick proving particularly impressive, but there are a few weak moments from some of the less prominent characters.

Naturally, music plays a large role in this film. Both Phoenix and Witherspoon perform their songs and play their instruments in the film. This is impressive in itself, without beginning to realise that they succeed in sounding like those that they are portraying. The use of performance scenes is highly effective and never becomes tedious. I can imagine it becoming difficult to sit through if the music is not to a viewer’s taste, however.

The script is strong, both in terms of dialogue and in the way in which the film plays out. The dialogue never becomes overly sentimental, even though it quite easily could have done so. Overall the scenes play out well, but there are times when the action tends to drag, making the film feel longer than its 130-minute run-time. The direction is at times stunning, the opening sequence standing out in particular.

The film easily handles the more difficult aspects of Johnny Cash’s life and often succeeded in making me grin at its happier moments. All in all, Walk the Line tells the story of a passionate, albeit troubled, man in a manner that is both entertaining and evocative.

8/10

The 78th Academy Awards, 2006

2006-03-11T20:11:00.000Z

Just to break off from reviews for a moment - here's an article I wrote for The Courier, the student magazine of Aberystwyth university, as a summary and reaction to this year's Oscars.

~

Every year the glamour of the film award season culminates with the Oscars, the epitome of Hollywood glitz. This year, Brokeback Mountain lead the competition with 8 nominations, though was closely followed by films such as Crash and Memoirs of a Geisha. This made the contest one of the most open for years, despite some of the categories being easy to predict.

Lately the ratings for the Oscars ceremony have fallen in America (and assumedly in the UK – why else was it shown on Sky Movies and not the BBC?). One wonders why, but perhaps it’s because viewers will tune in to see the pretty dresses and then switch off once the boring stuff starts. Well, this year a new host was roped in, Jon Stewart, of ‘The Daily Show’ fame. Stewart is a political satirist above all else and no doubt his some of his comments during the Oscars will have ruffled some middle-American feathers, even though he was far less scathing than most had expected.

But who cares, because we’re only watching for the pretty dresses, right? Reese Witherspoon dazzled in a vintage gown while Rachel Weisz looked fantastic in black, while 7 months pregnant. There did seem to be an distinct lack of good fashion from the ladies this year, most opting for middle-of-the-road attire. There were a fair few misses though – Charlize Theron’s monstrosity of a gown in particular, considering she normally gets it so right. There was a strange trend amongst the paler women – Nicole Kidman, Naomi Watts and Uma Thurman – all wore very pale dresses, making them look particularly washed out. Many of the men turned out in fine form – Ludacris and Terence Howard looking particularly dapper!

However, some of us do stay up all night because we care about the awards themselves. This year was particularly exciting, even if many people had assumed that Brokeback Mountain would sweep the board – it didn’t. Four films shared the highest number of awards: Brokeback Mountain, Crash, Memoirs of a Geisha and King Kong. No doubt it will be the first two which will be most talked about, having won the bigger awards. Brokeback Mountain won Best Director (Ang Lee), Best Adapted Screenplay (Diana Ossana and Larry McMurty) and Best Score (Gustavo Santaolallo). Crash became the shock winner of the night as it won Best Picture, the award most assumed would be won by Brokeback Mountain. Along with the top honour, Crash won Best Original Screenplay (Paul Haggis and Robert Moresco) and Best Editing (Hughes Winborne). Memoirs of a Geisha and King Kong both won three awards each, all in the technical categories. It should be noted that in terms of a nominations-to-wins success rate, King Kong came out best – winning three of its four nominations.

There were no surprises amongst the acting categories. Philip Seymour Hoffman won Best Actor, for his portrayal of Truman Capote, the favourite in a very strong group of nominees. Reese Witherspoon won Best Actress in a weaker category, for her role in Walk the Line. George Clooney won Best Supporting Actor, for his role in Syriana. Was this to make up for Good Night and Good Luck winning nothing, I wonder? Rachel Weisz won Best Supporting Actress for her role in The Constant Gardener, bringing home at least one award for the Brits.

Other notable winners were Wallace and Gromit – I defy anyone not to be pleased about this - winning Best Animated Feature, Tsotsi winning Best Foreign Language Feature and March of the Penguins winning Best Documentary Feature. The only decision that didn’t seem quite right to me, personally, was The Chronicles of Narnia winning Best Make-Up. I loved the Narnia film and all, but I honestly thought that Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith was far more deserving, especially as it wasn’t even nominated in the Visual Effects category.

This year the main contenders were very political, very issue-driven films. Of the five nominated for Best Picture, two deal with homosexuality, one about racism, one about McCarthyism and the remaining one deals with the Isreal-Palestine situation. None of these films were huge box-office successes – King Kong made more at the box-office than all five nominees combined. Hopefully, the high level of coverage, not only during the Oscar season, but during the entire awards season will bring these films’ to people’s attentions.

As much as I loved Brokeback Mountain, I was glad to see Crash awarded with the top honours, as it is a truly wonderful film. I was sad, however, to see Munich leave empty handed as the film blew me away. There had been problems with the copies of the film sent to Academy members for consideration – it’d be a shame if this was the reason it garnered so few nominations. I was surprised not to see Eric Bana up for an acting nod. It’s possible that in its attempt at being more liberal Hollywood has only shown hypocrisy, however. Brokeback Mountain was highly praised and yet gay actors have been playing straight roles for years – where are their nominations? Many cynics think that Crash only won because it is based in LA and therefore it proves that the industry is a very insular one.

Personally, I think so long as the films that are awarded are deserving, it shouldn’t matter why it won. It’s nice to see films that are commercially smaller being awarded and gaining attention this way. The same furor will come around next year, with the speculation starting months in advance. Here’s hoping the competition for the 79th Academy Awards will be as good as it was this year.

Brokeback Mountain (2005)

2006-03-04T02:32:00.000Z

The vast majority of people have come to know Brokeback Mountain as ‘that gay cowboy film’, while filmmakers have insisted it is far more than that. Its content and subsequent controversy has helped create a significant amount of hype surrounding the project and its release. For a lot of people, I think this hype will in fact have been detrimental to their enjoyment of the film. We are not given some over-blown, purposefully controversial film; rather we are given what is, simply, a love story.

Our protagonists are Ennis and Jack, who meet while working as sheepherders in Wyoming. A relationship develops between the two men, until they must leave and go their separate ways. The film follows their lives over some 20 years or so, as they both marry and start families, only to still meet up for ‘fishing trips’.

The film is a very quiet one. For the first 10 minutes one starts to wonder if there is going to be much dialogue at all and it is almost half an hour before anything other than chit-chat and sheep watching takes place. Very little happens throughout the film, we simply follow two intertwining lives. Despite this, we care enough for the characters for it to remain engaging and interesting.

The film’s greatest strength is its leads, Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal. Both actors bring their characters to life – Ledger as the brooding Ennis and Gyllenhaal as the idealistic Jack. On the surface it seems that Ennis is the realist and Jack is the dreamer and yet we see that Ennis is the more emotionally volatile of the pair. The subtleties of the characters add greatly to our appreciation of their story. Ledger particularly impresses as a man of few words and yet he succeeds in conveying the complexities of the often-confused Ennis. The supporting cast is also strong, Michelle Williams standing out as Ennis’ wife.

Both the direction and cinematography is strong. Ang Lee beautifully presents us the wonderful environment that these two men find themselves in. There is a real sense of isolation in amongst the stunning scenery of Brokeback Mountain and yet a sense of peace too. The sparse musical accompaniment ensures the film is filled with a quietness that, for the characters, is, at times, awkward and at others, comfortable.

The direction, along with a strong script, ensures that this film is more than a run-of-the-mill romance. This is certainly helped by its strong performances. The story is touching and at times particularly poignant. However, I feel the hype surrounding it is not entirely deserved (is such hype ever deserved?). This film may be groundbreaking insofar that its romantic leads are both men, but beneath that it is simply a very well told love story and nothing else. This is not to say that the film does not deserve the immense praise it has received, it might just be that films equally as good, if not better, are being side-lined by the press, in favour of hype.

Brokeback Mountain is a touching story strengthened by its execution on screen, particularly by the superb performances from Ledger and Gyllenhaal. Where it could’ve been made in a way that deserved its surrounding controversy, thankfully it was not. Instead of playing up its more controversial elements, it presents them as they are – not controversial at all – and so we are left with a story both sad and beautiful, regardless of the sexuality of the protagonists.

9/10

Munich (2005)

2006-03-03T02:19:00.000Z

Never before has a film affected me as much as this. This film is proof of how powerful cinema can be and how important it is that films such as this are made. I did not go into the cinema expecting this to be an easy ride, but I did not expect it to be as difficult as it turned out to be.

The film deals with the aftermath of the massacre of 9 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. That massacre is a well-known event, whereas the covert and bloody aftermath is not. The film is presented as being ‘inspired by real events’ and is based on the book ‘Vengeance’ by George Jonas. While certain creative liberties may or may not have been taken in the film and in the material it is based on, the film is still a harrowing portrayal of the nature of terrorism.

The film follows Avner (Eric Bana) as he is chosen to lead a select group of men to kill 11 men believed to have been responsible for the planning of the massacre at Munich. What begins as a taut thriller soon becomes something far surpassing the boundaries of genre. It soon unfurls its true colours as things spiral out of control and Avner begins to question his own motives and the motives of those who gave him this mission.

The group consists of ordinary men – a toymaker, an antiques dealer – and each has his own motives for joining as well as his own doubts. The acting is superb all round, but Eric Bana truly shines as Avner. We see him descend from eager soldier to the mere shell of a man, haunted by what he has done. I am truly surprised that he has not received any nominations in the recent flurry of awards, as his performance is astounding.

Along with a fine cast, the script is beautifully written, making us believe that these are people we are watching on the screen, not characters. The dialogue is engaging and even during some of the longer speeches it never becomes laboured or false. In portraying the story there are no ‘good guys’ and no ‘bad guys’. Although we are mainly given the Israeli perspective, they are not portrayed as heroes, and neither are their opponents portrayed as villains. Whereas we begin with Avner as a typical leading man, by the end we glimpse the opposite end of the gun, when he himself becomes a target.

The violence of the film is graphic, but not gratuitously so. The more action-orientated scenes are handled with great adroitness, adding to the emotional impact of the story. We see the team’s targets eliminated, one by one, and we see the toll it slowly takes on Avner. Even when he leaves the mission and returns to his wife and baby daughter he cannot escape the horror of his actions and the actions of others. For every man he kills, there is a replacement.

This is one of the strongest messages of the film – the pointlessness of it all. The killing leads to more killing, which leads to more still. One scene which has stayed in my mind the most is that of Avner telling one of the men at his command not kill a young boy who has just seen his parents killed by the raiding soldiers. Avner may have saved the boy’s life, but that boy is just as likely to grow up hating men like Avner and perhaps even becoming a terrorist himself. Violence begets violence, an eye for an eye – and yet the world never seems to learn.

Steven Spielberg’s direction is flawless in this film. From askew camera angles to clever cross-cutting of scenes, all is executed with precision. One of the most harrowing sequences is the encounter with another assassin, possibly one of the coldest moments of the film as Avner’s mission goes from professional to personal. Speilberg would be fully deserving of the Oscar, should he win the award. Spielberg has once again teamed up with John Williams to provide the music, who as usual delivers a haunting and beautiful score.

The final scene of the film is between Avner and his previous ‘employer’, in New York. In the background we see the skyline, with the Twin Towers standing proudly in the middle. The film ends with this skyline, reminding us of how starkly topical this film is, though it is set in the 1970’s. This film is an eye-opener, a kick in the gut. I would urge everyone to see this film, because although it is deeply difficult, it is also tremendously important.

10/10

Crash (2004)

2006-02-22T20:52:00.000Z

My sister, who lives in LA, highly praised this film about the race relations in the city. According to her, not only is it a fine piece of cinema, but also very true to life there.

Now, I can't comment on the accuracy of its portrayal of the city, but I agree that this is a superb film. The story is a tightly woven tale of interconnecting characters that never once becomes confusing. This is different from some other ensemble pieces - rather than all the characters knowing each other, this is a case of paths randomly crossing in the one thing that does connect each and every one of them - the city.

There isn't a single weak link in the large and impressive cast. Thandie Newton and Terence Howard are amongst those who stand out. I was impressed by Chris Bridges, a man I only know as 'Ludacris'. I'm always ready to scoff when rappers take to the screen, but he held his own well.

Both script and direction by Paul Haggis are superb. I've not seen any of his other work, but seeing this film makes me take a bit more of an interest in seeing Million Dollar Baby. The direction is involving, scenes of different plot threads often flowing into each other via the opening of a door or someone slamming their fist on a table. This was at times disorientating, but this only adds to what is, at times, uncomfortable viewing.

The subject at hand in this film is understandably a sensitive one, but it is handled with care. The film highlights various discriminations between the ethnic groups of LA - Caucasian, African-American, Mexican, Iranian, Hispanic, Chinese - as well as various cases of positive discrimination. None of the characters are free from discrimination or ignorance - many of the characters one first believes to be 'good' are in fact highly hypocritical. I felt that the Iranian shop-keeper was shown a particularly harsh light, whereas many of the other characters have more obvious moments of partial 'redemption'.

All in all this drama is engaging, even in it's most uncomfortable moments, with a sense of reality that is, at times, frightening. I only hope that this film provides an eye-opener for its audience, as none of us is truly free from the discriminations it portrays.

9/10

King Kong (2005)

2006-01-10T23:36:00.000Z

I'm a big fan of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy (despite my many complaints about it). I've seen both The Frighteners and Heavenly Creatures (the former being great fun and the latter being quite sublime), so there was no doubt in my mind that Peter Jackson is, indeed, a superb film maker. I knew Kong was going to be a fine film. I was blown away.

The film, quite simply, broke my heart. I've only seen parts of the original, 1933 version (terrible of me, I know), but eververyone knows the story of Kong - it was beauty killed the beast, and all that. Any prior knowledge I had of the story did nothing to prepare me for the ride that Peter Jackson provides with this film.

The opening of the story in New York City is an interesting and poignant story in itself - that of poverty-stricken, out-of-work actress Ann Darrow and of wannabe auteur Carl Denham. Peter Jackson gives us lots of time to get to know the characters before he even mentions the star of the show, let alone shows him. Some might find all these sequences boring - I, for one, didn't. Knowing these characters inside out made the non-stop action that followed all the better, for truly feeling for the people involved. Even the minor crew members - Lumpy the cook, played by Andy Serkis, was a particular stand out for me - evoke great emotion during their journey.

Things really get going once they get aboard the ship, the SS Venture. Here we watch as Ann and Jack tenderly (and inevitably) fall in love. It's not over-done, which I was concerned it might be, and was all the better for it. The mystery surrounding Skull Island is expertly built, with the crew at loggerheads with Denham, who has tricked them into believeing they were headed for Singapore.

So far, so story-laden. Once they reach the island, things take a sudden turn. Jackson provides us with non-stop action at break-neck speed - without it ever getting boring. This of course brings us to Kong himself. A wise choice was made by Jackson in keeping Kong as a silver-backed gorilla, not humanised in any way. The same goes for Kong's expressions and emotions. Though all the emotions we see Kong go through are familiar to us, they are all in that more primal and wild state. Andy Serkis deserves the highest possible praise (shame on you, Academy) for his performance as Kong. He captures the humanity in Kong without ever anthropomorphising him.

A highlight of the film's many action sequences is a sequence between Kong and three T-Rexes. It's long and at times it's quite ridiculous, but that never makes it bad or boring - it's pulled off with such a talent and imagination that you don't care that Kong would've died in the fight, leave alone poor Ann.

Once off the island things take an emotional turn. There are few scenes I've seen in film that are sadder than Kong, chained and defeated, thrust in front of an audience. When the action reaches the Empire State building everything reaches it's emotional climax - the audience feels just like Ann who watches, helpless, as Kong is shot down. Despite the people he's killed and injured, you don't want this creature to die, because he doesn't deserve to. Thankfully, the unlikely couple get a sweet moment of happiness before this - playing on the ice.

There's no denying that a lot of people will find Kong a boring film, but frankly anyone going to see Kong for 'the big monkey' deserve to be bored. This is an intelligent and intensely emotional film, yet full of action and eye candy. The performances are great all round - Naomi Watts shines as Ann, Adrien Brody is suitably heroic and Jack Black is impressive as the complex Carl. It's also nice to see Jamie Bell again, even if his accent was a bit dodgy at times!

The music was wonderful, but on a personal note I would very much like to hear what Howard Shore had intended as the score for the film. In all honesty the score by James Newton Howard was very much similar to Shore's work on the LotR - the quiet choir-and-strings for the more emotional moments and the fully-blown orchestral pieces for the action. It makes me wonder what exactly it was the Peter Jackson decided was wrong with Shore's ideas.

This is the kind of film people say aren't made any more - epic, emotional and romantic. It's a shame not more films are made like this.

10/10