A Day In The Life Of Your Average Film Graduate....

My wonderfully extensive and layered review of KEITH LEMON: THE MOVIE

2012-09-06T07:47:00.001-07:00

Don't watch this movie...

Hollywood's Uncovered Gems?

2012-09-05T10:15:00.004-07:00

There is a rowdy queue of merits associated with the serene art of cinema; perhaps one of the strongest advantages lies in its powerful sense of evocation. For some very privileged people, cinema is able to paint more than just a pretty picture and is fully able to rip into its audience’s soul and juggle with their emotions, their thoughts and feelings. Let me throw some names at you:

Nolan. Tarantino. Spielberg.

Household names; ground-breaking directors who have caused more than a mere stir during their renowned careers and all thanks to one endearing trait; their pure love of cinema. Their contribution has helped make cinema a dominant art form, one which truly caters for everybody with its eclectic style and creative prowess. So it’s really no surprise that the deaths of Tony Scott and Michael Clarke Duncan have packed such a brutal punch.

Tony Scott lived his life in the shadow of his more-critically accepted brother, Ridley (Alien, Blade Runner) yet thankfully, the overwhelmingly positive tributes that have flooded in for the late and certainly great director have focused solely on his aesthetically pleasing body of work. Many will recall the likes of Top Gun, an undoubtedly popular addition to the macho-men volume of Hollywood cinema and far superior to the likes of Charlie Sheen’s Navy SEALS and oh, yes…Iron Eagle.

What Scott lacked in critical backing, he made up for at the box-office. However, unlike film-makers who experience similar critical contrast such as Michael Bay, Scott was a true master of his craft. His ‘on-the-fence’ reviews would usually pin-point a lack of dramatic and narrative resonance (that was attributed so highly to Ridley) yet a picture made to pure perfection. In Poker terms, he was always the Full House opposed to the Royal Flush. His knowledge and dexterous touch as well as sublime craftsmanship were second-to-none and his flicks provided audiences with endless hours of thrills and spills. A truly remarkable, yet severely underrated film-maker.

Michael Clarke Duncan was a unique screen presence. Big Mike stood at 6’ 5” and his muscular frame, imposing stature and deep, booming voice were bizarrely contrasted by his kind, caring nature; or at least that was the way he consistently came across as.

Like many others, the role I’ll always associate him with was that of the (wrongly) convicted child-murderer in Frank Darabont’s The Green Mile. Strongly considered one of the best movies made in the last 20-years or so, The Green Mile was an adaption from Stephen King’s novel of the same name. Duncan portrayed John Coffey (“like the drink, only not spelled the same”), a seemingly uneducated simpleton who had been sentenced to death after being discovered with two dead girls. As the audience learns more about the character in Darabont’s majestic and emotionally charged movie, Duncan himself is a revelation. Never looking like a fish-out-of-water next to co-star Tom Hanks, Duncan was rightly nominated for an Oscar that year for his portrayal which will be remembered for a long time to come.

The point I wish to make is one that rings a beneficial bell in terms of Hollywood. Tributes poured in from all over when the shocking announcements were first made. It quickly became apparent that though neither was considered a household name, both were respected by those who cherish the art of cinema as well as those who perhaps consider themselves casual acquaintances with their local movie theatre. I think it’s a testament to the power of movies and the much-maligned Hollywood that these two figures are being celebrated so much. Scott’s True Romance defined the hyper-stylised and violent movies of the 90s (written by Pulp Fiction’s Tarantino of course) and contemporary film fans hold recent efforts such as Unstoppable starring Chris Pine and Denzel Washington and Man On Fire, again starring Scott-favoured Washington, in such high-esteem.

Duncan also had a varied career; The Green Mile will go down as his magnum opus due to his Oscar nom, but he also starred in many a-blockbuster such as Armageddon, The Whole Nine Yards and Daredevil. He was appreciated by the industry he loved so much and by the fans who flocked to the cinema, even if they couldn’t quite recall his name.

Hollywood is damn-near impossible to break and once you’ve made it, it can knock you back down from whence you came within a matter of seconds. That’s what they say anyway but I believe the likes of Michael Clarke Duncan and Tony Scott oppose that theory. Consistent, efficient, hard-working and reliable; they weren’t stars that shone the brightest and perhaps didn’t always get the recognition they deserved but when it came down to the final haul, both got the rousing send-off they deserved and the industry has suffered a great loss. The beauty of film is that they will always be remembered through their art and cemented within the rich history of cinema forever more.

Tony Scott (21^st June, 1944 – 19^th August, 2012)

Michael Clarke Duncan (10^th December, 1957 – 3^rd September, 2012)

The Dark Knight Rises; Better Later Than Never

2012-08-31T02:04:00.002-07:00

There’s little doubt in my mind that by the end of the year, Christopher Nolan’s epic conclusion to his Dark Knight series will be top in box-office takings. I’m not a skilled mathematician in any way, shape or form but I believe if you deduct the extra earnings that The Avengers ~~ripped off~~ took from its 3D advantages (you know, an extra £1.50 for a tainted experience and over-sized glasses), then The Dark Knight Rises comes out on top. I’m sure far cleverer and wiser people than myself will tell you this is not the case though*

*it is.

But it doesn’t matter; at the end of the day people aren’t going to clamber home and divulge their full feelings and thoughts on the movie based on how much money it raked in. The age-old saying about quality and quantity comes into play massively here. Box-office success has never and will never equal critical acclaim – just ask Michael Bay.

Again, it doesn’t matter; no one is going to clamber home at the end of the day and sa—oh, I’ve done this part. Well, forgive my sanctimonious ramblings about film politics. The movie itself is wonderful. It’s a wonderful movie. It’s fantastically ambitious in scope and executed with the deft precision we’ve come to expect from Nolan’s skilled hands. It also brings up an interesting question:

Is it a good Batman movie?

Was The Dark Knight? As far as I’m concerned, Batman Begins represented the character of Batman as I, a comic-book virgin, would expect him to be portrayed. It felt like it jumped right out of the murky pages of a traditionally dark graphic novel with its steam-soaked streets, colourfully off-beat characters and, well…a guy dressed as a bat. Then The Dark Knight came along and, perhaps juiced up by Heath Ledger’s tragic death, the fan-boy community was given a sudden jolt of excitement; anticipation for this movie was sky-high and it delivered on all the right notes. I’m going to shamelessly quote famed movie-critic Roger Ebert on this one because he says it better than most:

“Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight” is a haunted film that leaps beyond its origins and becomes an engrossing tragedy”.

So that’s what Roger says and I agree whole-heartedly. It took Batman to a new level (for me at least) and gave us all a healthy dose of entertainment along the way. In a way it’s raised the bar for what many believe a good Batman movie should be (to be straight, I don’t quite agree with this as I really enjoyed Tim Burton’s gothic-inspired effort in 1989).

The Dark Knight Rises tries so hard to do this again and upon my second viewing, I noted the scope of the film; what Nolan tried to achieve was amazing; an entire city is ripped apart from inside, both politically and socially, and then stapled together precariously whilst awaiting the heart-pounding climax. It’s what Nolan loves to do and though I don’t think he truly achieved the successes he had with The Dark Knight, you have to stand up and applaud the guy. It’s no easy task and I doubt I could do it*

*I couldn’t.

That being said, I’d hardly label the movie a ‘failure’; its undertones and themes are convoluted and many plot-points are far too convenient and far-fetched. I’ve read thousands of plot-holes related to the movie and though I agree many of them raise an eye-brow or two, I would suggest that Nolan’s movies are perhaps slightly more exposed to quizzical wonderings from the online community due to the director’s stature which has truly polarised some as well as captivated others. I admit I’m a big fan; I wrote my University dissertation on the guy and the way in which he’s crossed the boundary between Indie and Mainstream without as much as a scratch on him. He’s a remarkable film-maker and whilst I will never be as arrogant and pompous to label him one of the greats, his contribution to Hollywood has left a significant mark.

Also, stop asking:

“How does Bane eat?”

Did you ever ask how Darth Vader ate? Perhaps he was a big fan of the suffragette era and took to consuming his daily meals through a narrowly worked straw.

I liked Bane. I liked the music (I like to imagine someone following Bane down the street, beating enthusiastically on a pair of drums slung over their chest). I liked Catwoman. I liked her outfit. I liked Michael Caine crying. I liked the special effects. I liked Joseph Gordon-Levitt being called *SPOILER* Robin and I liked Bane beating people up with a bike-helmet.

There’s a whole collection of great things to like about this movie, but I think love is perhaps an expression too far. The movie goes places that it perhaps needs to go but I don’t know how much it sacrifices audience entertainment for; the fight scenes are very well orchestrated with Bane matching Batman for physical strength with interest. Tom Hardy has a good time as the muscular and intimidating figure of Bane and his presence is felt throughout the movie, even when he’s sadly not on screen. Elsewhere, Anne Hathaway shoves her previous critics away with a flawless, confident and humorous performance as Selina Kyle (Catwoman is never once uttered) and her role is used well by Nolan as is the role of John Blake, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. A lot of characters, a lot of balancing; I admit I was surprised at the lack of Christian Bale as the Batman. He has quite a journey of discovery in this movie and Bale probably puts in his best performance of the trilogy as a Bruce Wayne completely devoid of hope.

By the end you’ll appreciate the action that has unfolded; as always, it’s second-to-none and the urgency of the film’s events is felt throughout. Nolan has his pacing covered and it’s definitely a movie that you could see more than once without feeling like you need to stealthily check the time on your phone.

The story is rather insignificant at the end – I don’t think many will care for the ‘Save The World’ idea that is thrown about rather lethargically towards the beginning of the film and plot-points seem to follow suit, being branded about left, right and centre until dropped completely for the explosive ending. It’s a movie that deserves its plaudits and the money earned but it never quite reaches the heights set by its predecessor perhaps even Whedon’s Avengers, but it’s worth-watching as always and paints a beautiful picture thanks to the sublime efforts of cinematographer Wally Pfister.

The Avengers

2012-05-02T05:44:00.000-07:00

Note: Spoilers assemble…

A Shakespearean God from the realm of Asgard blasts his way through a top-secret facility, using an oddly shaped sceptre to brain-warp those he decides will be of some use in his scheming plans, and steals a bright blue cube of immense energy and power. This bright blue cube of immense energy and power will destroy our entire world if utilised in the incorrect fashion, and that’s all you really need to know in order to enjoy this film, which for a movie with a running time of over two hours, is remarkably fresh and breezy.

The God in question is Loki (Tom Hiddleston), primary antagonist from last year’s comic-caper ‘Thor’, one of several antecedents for the combined delight that is ‘The Avengers’ (or if you’ll humour me, Marvel’s Avengers Assemble’). It all began in 2008 when Robert Downey Jr’s revitalised career mirrored the start of something new, something exciting. The result is a well-tuned, well-acted, exceptionally-scripted blockbuster which has issued a strong, robust, and loud message, not just to its flocking audiences, but to a certain Chris Nolan. “Your move, Mr. Wayne…”

The task of bringing the outlandish egos of Iron Man (Downey Jr.), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Captain America (Chris Evans), and The Incredible Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) together to form one cohesive narrative has fallen kindly at the feet of cult-hero (and God), Joss Whedon. You’ll have to forgive me at this point; I grew up on a healthy diet of American pop culture, of which Whedon’s Buffy The Vampire Slayer, was a strong contributor, and to this day, I would gladly give up my first born child for this man. I try to avoid inane bias in my reviews, but sometimes there is too great a force, and this is one such occasion. I shall reliably inform you that the man is a genius. An underrated, relentless, wit-tastic genius.

That being said, this movie should not work. It just shouldn’t. There is so much going on at any one moment in time that it’s very hard to comprehend what one character just said before you’re whisked away on another matter. Take the scene aboard the heli-boat-copter for instance; they’re trying to figure Loki out, figure what he wants, what he plans to do etc, then all of a sudden, we’re thrust into a brand new world where S.H.I.E.L.D, led by the one-eyed Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), are suddenly the enemies, planning on utilising that bright blue cube of immense energy and power in their favour by constructing weapons of mass destruction. However, Fury isn’t exactly up to date on this plan. I know – confusing, right? It’s a comic book film in every sense, and it’s superior to every other comic book film that has taken to our screens (I don’t include The Dark Knight in this instance as it transcends the genre) and if you don’t walk into the screening with your disbelief well and truly suspended…then what’s the point, may I ask?

Don’t compare this film to The Dark Knight Rises – it’ll be like comparing American Beauty to Pan’s Labyrinth – because these are two differently dexterous directors who have engaged in two differently dexterous styles of film. With The Avengers, you will have fun; sublime fun. There are a lot of explosions, but the on-screen action is directed with aplomb and swiftness – Whedon never forgets his constraints on time and space, and is able to move our attention to where it truly matters, delivering one hell of a final act which is brash, loud, and utterly brilliant.

I could talk forever about the script which is full to the brim with witty one-liners and dripping with banterous dialogue. Fans of Whedon will know how strong a writer he is, and his style has not been diluted by the money-starved executives behind the scenes. The film is really quite hilarious, and one of the only negatives I could come up with for the film is that you may occasionally struggle to hear the dialogue through the raucous laughter sounding out around you.

Take a film like Inception – I know I said not to compare to Nolan, but I’m not comparing styles – it doesn’t utilise all its characters, it fits them into the story well enough, but we never get a true sense of who they are. Why on earth is Ariadne helping out Cobb? What does she stand to gain? Eames? Is he in it for the money? The Avengers’ main strength is its character moments, even the smallest nuance of a smile or gesture – it gets it absolutely spot on, and is what makes the film so enjoyable. A film about characters that will never exist in our world suddenly become so relatable, so easy to connect with, that we root for them to the very end, part with our well-earned money, and eagerly anticipate the inevitable sequel.

I can’t stress enough how good this movie is; for fans of Joss Whedon’s existing works, I’d be stunned if you hadn’t already seen it, and for those who have little idea of who he is, get ready to have your minds completely, whole-heartedly, unequivocally…blown.

The Hunger Games

2012-03-23T04:53:00.003-07:00

The Hunger Games is not another Twilight Saga, not in any way, shape, or form. For one thing, the female lead is a strong, resilient character who doesn't lust after the stoic aid of a glitterball 'vampire', nor do her adolescent affections drive the franchise forward.

Based on the first young-adult novel of Suzanne Collins's 2008 best-selling trilogy, The Hunger Games isn't particularly new in concept, but manages to create a wonderfully vibrant pastiche, featuring strong imagery and effective satire of a world obsessed with violence and the impact of reality TV.

For those that have read the novel, many with find the movie, directed by Gary Ross of Seabiscuit fame, to be remarkably faithful, capturing the beauty of the coveted 'Capitol' city, displaying a kaleidoscope of quirky designs, colourful arrangements, and grandiose, towering structures. On the other side of the spectrum, there is the unfaltering brutality of the war-torn nation, which annually watches as 24 children, or 'tributes' (aged 12-18), are flung into a computerised arena and forced to murder each other until just one stands victorious.

For those new to this post-apocalyptic dystopia that Collins has created, the plot revolves around 16yr old Katniss Everdeen (played by the sublime Jennifer Lawrence, channeling every aspect of her Oscar-nominated turn in Winter's Bone), a resident in District 12 of the nation of Panem (a menacing futuristic vision of North America post-war). Each year, the 'Reaping' will take place and one boy and one girl from all 12 Districts will be chosen to compete in that year's Hunger Games. After Katniss's sister, Primrose, is reaped, our heroine takes centre stage, fiercely volunteering in the place of her younger sibling, and she and the male tribute, Peeta (played by Josh Hutcherson, a performance that hits back at his critics) are quickly whisked off to the Capitol to begin their training.

There is nothing bland about The Hunger Games, and each second of screentime is used to great effect, whether it be the scene meticulously depicting Katniss's supreme hunting ability, or the pure, unadulterated joy and intent on the faces of those who reside in the Capitol, free from the terrifying apprehension of the Reaping. Exposition is never spoon-fed; Ross respects the intellect of the audience, efficiently allowing us to piece together his jigsaw by showing us, rather than telling us (for the most part).

The Hunger Games may be taken as a literal understanding that outside the gluttonous Capitol, each District is repressed by poverty and despair, an image certainly fitting to District 12, a place completely devoid of colour, and where food such as bread is a rare and wonderful treat. Though Collins, nor Ross, go into much detail about the Capitol in this outing, its self-degradation from consumerism and over-indulgence in a life of lavish luxuries are hinted at on occasions, painted in the inhabitants' faces, prevalent in their need for mindless entertainment. In a world dominated by Big Brother, artificial thrills are generated from behind the scenes by head gamemaker, Seneca Crane (an ignorant, yet assured, Wes Bentley) and whilst teenagers slaughter each other, those outside the arena view it as nothing but a mere game on which they are able to bet on, invest in competitors, alter the Games to their liking, and care little about mundane topics such as ethics and morality. There is no line to cross here.

Though the novel sticks closely to Katniss (it's written in first person), the film doesn't waste its talented supporting cast, each of whom embrace their role wildly, bringing the words to life with zest, ambition, and strong individuality. Woody Harrelson as District 12 mentor Haymitch is particularly memorable, playing his character with slightly more warmth and humour than his literary counterpart, but his affection for Katniss when he recognises her ability and her gutsy intent is never downplayed. Elsewhere, Elizabeth Banks is blissfully unaware and bubbly as Capitol appointed District 12 representative, Effie Trinkett. Lenny Kravitz is the kind-hearted stylist, Cinna, whose goal is to help Katniss in making an 'impression', and Donald Sutherland shows hints of his ruthless leadership as the nation's leader, President Snow, a role that, as the final scene suggests, will loom larger in the following films.

The Hunger Games is an intense affair, dominated by raw emotion and brutal action. The violence is toned down through quick-fire cuts and editing, perhaps to accommodate a larger audience, but the movie is resoundingly bloody, particularly the first scene inside the arena where blades, swords, knives and arrows are wielded, culminating in disturbing shots of lifeless children lying bloodied and battered whilst others rush around, no time to think about what's right and what's wrong. It caters to those going in fresh-minded and will satisfy those with high expectations. It's a film unlike any other, and though it borrows heavily from other works, it's a postmodern success, kept fresh by creatively minded architects, bright performances, and dazzling displays of refined popcorn-entertainment. A must see.

The 84th Academy Awards

2012-02-18T06:51:00.029-08:00

And so it comes to that grand old time again -- the Oscars. The biggest awards ceremony on the planet, and by far the most watched. Even with dwindling ratings, millions of people across the globe tune in to catch a glimpse of their A-list idols, and see who snags the biggest of big prizes.

2012 sees the return of Billy Crystal, back to resume his love-affair with the Academy and show James Franco and Anne Hathaway how it's done.

In terms of nominations, Martin Scorsese's Hugo leads the way with 11 nominations, but I think the more prestigious categories may elude Marty this time around.

So here's my rundown of the main events -- these are purely my opinions so don't criticise or belittle me in any way, shape, or form.

Oh, and one one more note -- I haven't got around to seeing The Help yet -- nothing against them, I just haven't done it yet. Soon. Soon....

Best Picture

The Artist
The little black and white picture that has taken the world by storm. Is this film a serious contender? Yes, and not just because it features a strong yearning for a classical period of Hollywood. It's a great story, featuring strong performances, reminiscent of a golden era, and is smartly told, beautifully orchestrated, and never loses focus or interest. I'd encourage you all to see it -- dialogue is not necessary, and it's easily the best film of last year. Except for maybe Rango...

Chances of Winning?: Bang on the money.

The Descendants
Featuring the performance of Clooney's career, this little gem stands a real chance. Its complex subject matter is simplified through its recurring theme of family, and what that means to those involved. Everything is put firmly in place with effortless style and significance, and the movie hits the audience hard, tugs at their emotions and is a charmingly smart, funny, and heart-wrenching tale.

Chances of Winning?: Very good. Strong contender.

Extremely Loud And Incredibly Close
Again, this is my opinion, and clearly the Academy disagree with me. But this movie should not have been nominated. Yes, it has Tom Hanks, and it deals with 9/11 in some capacity, and therefore, feels like Oscar fodder, but it's rubbish. It's insanely dull, features an incredibly irritating protagonist, and doesn't seem to reach any discernible conclusion (for me) -- it's place should have been taken by Drive or even We Need To Talk Above Kevin. Both are superior in every aspect, and this film severely falters in comparison to the names it's listed with. And I hated that fucking tambourine. Still...Tom Hanks ftw.

Chances of Winning?: Lol.

The Help
My girlfriend thought it looked good. She didn't like Real Steel though...(or E.T.).

Hugo
Real movie magic. That's what Hugo has to offer. Created by a man with an obscene amount of love for the art, and featuring a story about the birth of cinema, it almost can't go wrong. Fortunately, Scorsese is well-equipped for his first foray into 3-D, and makes efficient use of the format, providing the audience with a world in which they are able to fully immerse themselves, and get lost, along with Hugo, in the intricate mazes of Scorsese's beautiful tale.

Chances of Winning?: Good. Perhaps in the shadows of The Artist/The Descendants.

Midnight In Paris
From one love letter to another. Midnight In Paris is a top return to form for Woody Allen who has noticeably struggled recently. He's back on path with this latest offering, a dainty and sweet depiction of Paris through the eyes of an American Romantic. It's a remarkable feel-good movie (even for someone like me, who bloody hates Paris) and will leave all with a smile on their face and a distant wish to visit the Eiffel Tower in the near future. Plus...Marion Cotillard.

Chances of Winning?: Very meh. Possible, but would be punching above its weight.

Moneyball
Penned by Aaron Sorkin, fresh off his 'Social Network' success, this film is snappy, succinct, and gripping. As traditionally expected with most sports films, it features an underdog tale, but like its main characters, it does it with style and an unexpected method, working with statistics rather than rousing music and last-gasp victories. Pitt proves his acting credentials once again for any of those niggling doubters, and the movie fully deserves its place among the best of last year.

Chances of Winning?: No, not really, but a great film nonetheless.

The Tree Of Life
Perhaps the most polarising film of last year. A traditional marmite situation; you either loved it, or you hated it. I, unfortunately, dislike it immensely. That's down to personal taste. What I can't deny though, is its beauty. It features some truly stunning shots and the 'creation of the universe' segment will grip you entirely. Brad Pitt, yes him again, is in top form, and the coming-of-age story is well told, paced, and intriguing. Sean Penn, however....

Chances of Winning?: Perhaps TOO polarising. It's a darkhorse.

War Horse
When people ask about Spielberg's greatest film, expect responses like 'Jurassic Park', 'Schindler's List', 'E.T.' -- timeless classics. Can I say the same for War Horse? Probably not. It has great beauty, and stunning shots (the full-on pelt through the trenches), but I don't think it has the winning formula employed so successfully by Spielberg on other films. It's slightly uneven at times, and ever so contrived, but it has emotion, a plethora of good performances, and all the foreigners have the decency to speak in English.

Chances of Winning?: Doubt it, but the Academy does love Spielberg.

Best Director

Woody Allen -- Midnight In Paris

Has whipped back into form with this latest picture, creating a world which worships culture seemingly with ease. Well constructed, and deftly directed, it's great to see him nominated again. He doesn't actually show up to the Oscars nowadays though, but will perhaps be coerced this year.

Chances of Winning?: I'd love to see him up there, but this won't be his second Directing win.

Michel Hazanavicius -- The Artist

Very little known about this guy before The Artist (at least for me anyway), but he's made himself known with this daringly creative picture. Stretching back the years, and channeling a forgotten era into modern day Hollywood, Hazanavicius has achieved something quite remarkable here.

Chances of Winning?: The Oscar is his.

Terrence Malick -- The Tree Of Life

I'm not great with Malick's movies -- I've seen two of them, and neither completely gripped me; but it's clear he has a strong affinity for cinema and the way it appears on screen. The sheer beauty of Tree Of Life may be interpreted as pretentious by some, but I don't think that's what he was going for, and his achievements with this film should be commended. It's the most beautifully visual film of last year.

Chances of Winning?: Unlikely, but remains a dark horse, akin to his movie.

Alexander Payne -- The Descendants

Payne is hardly a household name, but take a gander at his track record, and you'll realise how hugely talented this guy is. Following on from his successful Sideways, The Descendants is a remarkably ambitious film which is made to look effortless (in a good way) by the sheer skill which the director demonstrates in manipulating events so very delicately in order to tell his story. He's rewarded by a host of great performances, but he keeps the story tight and compact throughout and stands a real good chance of winning.

Chances of Winning?: Second favourite behind Hazanavicius.

Martin Scorsese -- Hugo

The winner of the Golden Globe for Best Directing, and easy to see why. One of the greatest movie directors in history, Scorsese creates a love letter to cinema in a similar vein to Hazanavicius, but blends old and new with his venture into 3-D. It has a wondrous effect, and it's a world unlike any other. It's a film which no one can really dislike, and an effort that may find more fans among the Academy than some of his grittier features.

Chances of Winning?: The dark horse.

Best Actor In A Leading Role

Demián Bichir for A Better Life as Carlos Galindo

I haven't seen all of A Better Life. Not that it was boring or anything, I just wasn't in the right frame of mind, and will get back to it ASAP. What I did see what quite captivating though -- and Bichir, popping so suddenly into our lives, has done well to put himself on the radar with a performance that oozes desperation. Though I don't know how it ends, he shows himself as a lowly immigrant gardener, struggling with American life, and does it with so much conviction, that I can imagine it was hard for the Academy to overlook him.

Chances of Winning?: No, Dujardin has this one.

George Clooney for The Descendants as Matt King

Guy's having a good year -- having recently made the transition from acting to directing, Clooney has also had a busy year, directing films like The Ides Of March. The Descendants sees him at his very best though, and conveying a host of emotions, he manages to juggle the aspects of drama and humour with relative easy, proving once again how talented an actor he is.

Chances of Winning?: Good. Probably a two-horse race between him and Dujardin.

Jean Dujardin for The Artist as George Valentin

Have you seen this guy off-camera? He's arguably the most charming bloke like EVER. He made a Benny Hill crack at the BAFTAs which was a hoot. Had the audience in the palm of his hands. It's almost a shame he wasn't born in the 1900s, because he is made for silent movies. He has a range of expressions and gestures, which are fittingly apt for silence. He also has an incredibly strong french accent, which is used to amusing effect towards the end (watch the movie). He channels figures such as Douglas Fairbanks in this performance, and it's refreshing to watch. There are no negatives in his performance.

Chances of Winning?: The favourite. Deservedly so.

Gary Oldman for Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy as George Smiley

It's pretty great to see Gary Oldman nominated for his first Oscar. It's long overdue, and though he won't win it, it's probably a great honour to have his marvelous work recognised by his peers. His work in Tinker Tailor is relatively simple it seems, but this is down to Oldman's precarious approach to the role, his effortless ease at moving around the camera, and essentially becoming one with the misty canvas (fuck knows what I'm talking about, but there's a real meaning in there somewhere) -- it's a brilliant performance in a brilliant film.

Chances of Winning?: Not much. But hooray for England.

Brad Pitt for Moneyball as Billy Beane

I hear a lot of crap about Brad Pitt from some people. In a nutshell, 'he's a pretty boy who can't act' seems to just about cover it. This is, of course, bullshit. Though he hasn't had a lot of success in winning awards outside the usual MTV Movie Awards arena, he's been nominated for an Oscar 3 times now, accompanied by a host of other big nominations. Whilst this won't be third time lucky, you just have to watch the film to see how he gives such a zest to the script, and brings the film to life in an entertaining way. I really enjoyed the film and its subject, and he deserves his nomination.

Chances of Winning?: Naaaah.

Best Actress In A Leading Role

Glenn Close for Albert Nobbs as Albert Nobbs

She plays a dude.

I hadn't heard anything about this movie until the Oscars. She won't win. But it's nice to see her nominated for a movie -- as far as I know, she's been playing around on TV shows for the last few years. Damages any good?

Chances of Winning?: Albert No.... (not my best)

Viola Davis for The Help as Aibileen Clark

She won the SAG award, which is usually a great indicator, so damn, I don't know. This category seems wide open. Although she was also in Extremely Loud...

Rooney Mara for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo as Lisbeth Salander

Never have I seen an actress commit so much to a film role. Total transformation here. Forget Black Swan, this was quite a horrific turn from Rooney Mara, who was featured ever so slightly in Fincher's 'Social Network' in 2010. She doesn't 'make the film', because it works on so many levels, but she is captivating, unafraid, and really fuckin' odd. Mara gives it her all, and succeeds in every aspect. She is deserving of her nomination, and in the group she's in, I'd personally give her the award, but for some inane reason....I'm not in charge of Hollywood. One day...

Chances of Winning?: No. The Academy hates Fincher and goth sex...

Meryl Streep for The Iron Lady as Margaret Thatcher

Haven't seen the film. Have no intention of seeing it, so I shall instead talk about Meryl Streep in Sophie's Choice....

She was well good.

Chances of Winning?: Probably. Everyone loves her, and she's a mighty fine actress.

Michelle Williams for My Week with Marilyn as Marilyn Monroe

I wasn't exactly around at the time of Marilyn Monroe, but from what I've gathered, she was the kinda' woman that you fell in love with...just like 'that'. So, I assume Michelle Williams had quite a difficult job on her hands. But fuck it, I fell in love with her, so success in my book. What she does is exceedingly good; she portrays a Hollywood icon as an almost stereotype, but because it invokes such a strong sense of nostalgia, it works, and she's my choice of winner (even though I've said that twice...).

Chance of Winning?: I hope so.

Best Supporting Actor

Kenneth Branagh for My Week with Marilyn as Laurence Olivier

Acting royalty in this film. His job is to make his presence known and everything he does he does with sublime character. Again, I know little about Laurence Olivier, but I know a great performance when I see one, and it takes quite something to stand your own against Marilyn Monroe. Maybe not a winner this time, but yay for England again...

Chances of Winning?: Sadly not.

Jonah Hill for Moneyball as Peter Brand

Whilst I'm fully behind Brad Pitt's nomination, Jonah Hill's nod was a slight surprise. Not to say he's not deserving, because I think he was great. It's just the last time most people saw him in a movie, he was crudely declaring to Michael Cera his intentions of fucking Emma Stone. Now he's being nommed for Oscars. Good for him. His performance was great; he was ever so slightly awkward. A genius. He grew into his role well, and was never over-the-top or sentimentally mundane. G'wan, Jonah!

Chances of Winning?: He's going home empty-handed. Unless he turns up with a girlfriend/wife...

Nick Nolte for Warrior as Paddy Conlon

I think Warrior was an underrated film. If Extremely Loud... was nominated, then I'd like to think Warrior should have been too...

Well maybe not, but it was still a lot better. And Nick Nolte delivers a performance that only he could. A drunk, wreck of a man... -- that's harsh, he's trying to recover, but when he's pushed, he goes through a dramatic change and it really twangs at the heart-strings. It's an amazingly powerful movie and performance. Definitely worth watching, and well worthy of the nomination.

Chances of Winning?: Nah. This category has an easy winner.

Christopher Plummer for Beginners as Hal Fields

The easy winner. He's picked up all the awards so far, and for bloody good reason. He's incredibly funny as the gay elderly man, dying of cancer. It's a film that a lot of people haven't seen, but has a truly unique feel to it, so I implore y'all to see it. Christopher Plummer (who you should all know) has been around a while, but never won an Oscar. This will be his first time, and after throwing himself into the deep end in such an amusing, yet emotional way....well deserved.

Chances of Winning?: YEEEEESSSSSSS (Imagine Michael McIntyre screaming that)

Max von Sydow for Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close as The Renter
Urgh. I like this guy as an actor -- I think he's wonderfully...weird. But I can't get behind anything representing this movie. I think I don't like him because he genuinely thought it'd be a good idea to follow this kid around the city, even if he was his (SPOILER) grandfather. Blah blah blah.

Chances of Winning?: No. Albert Brooks should be here. GROSS MISCONDUCT.

Best Supporting Actress

Bérénice Bejo for The Artist as Peppy Miller

Similar to Dujardin, she carries a lot of charm and grace with her throughout the movie, and I don't really get why she's Best Supporting Actress when she was very much the main actress in the film...I think. Either way, she stands a real chance, as I don't think there was too much difference in performance levels between her and Dujardin. She is as beautiful as she is talented, and never looked out of depth.

Chances of Winning?: Very good, I reckon

Jessica Chastain for The Help as Celia Foote
Again. Haven't seen. YET.

Melissa McCarthy for Bridesmaids as Megan Price

Ha, what a great nomination. I'm surprised the Academy went with this as it doesn't seem their style. I guess it would have been prudent to award the year's funniest film in some way. Best Supporting Actress seemed a safe option, and so we have Melissa McCarthy. She got more laughs than Zach Galifiniakaiskis did in both Hangover films and was unashamedly brilliant. She won't win -- the Academy wouldn't let it get that far, but it's a testament to the film's popularity and success that she was nominated for a hilarious performance.

Chances of Winning?: I severely doubt it.

Janet McTeer for Albert Nobbs as Hubert Page

See Glenn Close.

Good for her though.

Chances of Winning?: Nope.

Octavia Spencer for The Help as Minny Jackson

The favourite in the category, and I back her to win it.

I'mma put the predicted winners in BOLD.

Best Writing -- Original

The Artist – Michel Hazanavicius
Bridesmaids – Kristen Wiig and Annie Mumolo
Margin Call – J.C. Chandor
Midnight in Paris – Woody Allen
A Separation – Asghar Farhadi

As nice as it would be to see Midnight In Paris pick this one up, The Artist will win. Those who complain that it doesn't have any dialogue need to learn a thing or two about scripts. It's not all about the dialogue (if you've seen Drive, you'll know that).

Best Writing -- Adapted

The Descendants – Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, and Jim Rash from The Descendants by Kaui Hart Hemmings
Hugo – John Logan from The Invention of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick
The Ides of March – George Clooney, Grant Heslov, and Beau Willimon from Farragut North by Beau Willimon
Moneyball – Screenplay by Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin; Story by Stan Chervin from Moneyball by Michael Lewis
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy – Bridget O'Connor and Peter Straughan from Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy by John le Carré

Christ -- any of them could pick this one up. I'm going for The Descendants because I think it's the most appealing of the lot, and probably the smartest.

Best Animated Feature

A Cat in Paris – Alain Gagnol and Jean-Loup Felicioli
Chico and Rita – Fernando Trueba and Javier Mariscal
Kung Fu Panda 2 – Jennifer Yuh Nelson
Puss in Boots – Chris Miller
Rango – Gore Verbinski

If Rango doesn't win, I'll pack up, move to Hollywood, and kick some serious Academy ass.

Best Foreign Language Film

Bullhead (Belgium) in Dutch and French – Michaël R. Roskam
Footnote (Israel) in Hebrew – Joseph Cedar
In Darkness (Poland) in Polish – Agnieszka Holland
Monsieur Lazhar (Canada) in French – Philippe Falardeau
A Separation (Iran) in Persian – Asghar Farhadi

People be loving it. Haven't seen it myself, but I will check it out soon-ish. Maybe you should too.

The other nominations are a mixed bag. Anything that sees fit to nominate Transformers 3 for an Award is barely worth thinking about. Expect Hugo to really ramp up the technical awards though.

For those interested, the Academy Awards will be on UK TV on Sunday night. Sky Premiere and E! Entertainment will be hosting.

Should be a good 'un.

Carnage -- Review

2012-02-16T14:08:00.000-08:00

Carnage is perhaps a hyperbole. The implied connotations may give you different expectations of this movie, and not all of them will be met. It’s remarkable how so much damage can be inflicted through mere words, and this film explores that, accompanied by a quartet of bitingly sharp performances from its leads.

Though the movie takes place in a Manhattan apartment, it was in actual fact filmed in Paris, due to Roman Polanski’s inability to step foot in the USA. This has never prevented him from working with the best actors available, and making some of the greatest films of the last 50 years. Though his magnum opus remains Chinatown, made almost 40 years ago now, his work is as relevant today as it was back then.

The movie is a screen adaptation of Yasmina Reza’s play ‘God Of Carnage’. This is evident in the way Polanksi has bizarrely made use of space and time. With the exception of the opening and closing credits, the movie doesn’t stray from the apartment of Mr and Mrs Longstreet (John C. Reilly and Jodie Foster). Reluctantly joining them is upper-class couple, Mr and Mrs Cowan (Christophe Waltz and Kate Winslet). The reason for their occupying the same space is their children. Zachary, belonging to the Cowan’s, has smashed Ethan, belong to the Longstreet’s, around the face with a stick. The conversation flows politely in its early exchanges, a brief moment of silence here and there, or whenever Alan (Waltz) is ‘forced’ to remove himself and answer his incessantly-ringing cellphone.

The power here is how it develops. We open with a shady state of equilibrium; a state that has to smoothly cross into the realms of the eponymous carnage. This is orchestrated with masterful work from Polanski, giving his actors just that little bit extra to work with, deftly timing each event that takes place to occur precisely when it needs to. The running time of the movie is just over an hour, as is the on-screen narrative.

It’s a character study of considerable depth; at first, each of them displays signs of accustomed social conventions. Nancy (Winslet) feels inclined to enquire about the apartment she finds herself in, as well as the different displays of culture which Penelope (Foster) has laid out, primarily on her luxurious coffee table. Alan and Michael (C. Reilly) discuss their jobs, picking apart each other’s livelihood through polite, yet slightly strained dialogue, which is to lead someplace darker.

Bit by bit, shot by shot, Polanksi manipulates happenings to his will, sparks begin to fly, and tempers begin to flare. Put together by their children’s childish behaviour, the four parents exhibit their own infantine dispositions by hurling verbal put-downs at each other. They belittle, they snarl, they vomit, they drink, they scoff, they drink more, they sob, they turn on their own spouses, they drink even more, they smoke. It doesn’t ever reach what I would call ‘carnage’, but it certainly inhabits a space nearby.

As you’d expect, the script is solid enough to keep an audience satisfied for 70minutes, but the four actors, Winslet and Foster in particular, exude unmatched ability in being able to distort themselves over and over again, finely treading, but never crossing, the line between radical depiction and parody. They are all cynics, expecting next to nothing from their opponents; they won’t budge on their opinions, and a considerable amount of care is put into the way they act within the different circumstances Polanksi throws their way. It’s a refreshingly honest piece of work, but not funny enough to be considered comedy. It’s a movie worth watching, but don’t expect to be enlightened, amused, or entertained. This is a movie about character; it’s peculiar and comes off with an odd taste, but it’s impeccably acted, and masterfully directed.

Golden Globes 2012

2012-01-15T03:04:00.000-08:00

It's that time of year again. The Golden Globes are one of the more prestigious awards events, hosted by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, and is an event that rewards outstanding achievement in film and television. After the Oscars, and the Grammy awards, the ceremony is generally considered to be the 3rd most watched awards show in the world, hinting at its significance for those within the 'biz.

For some, it is a 'watered-down' version of the Oscars, which are due to take place at the end of next month, but I'd disagree with that sentiment, and maintain that the Golden Globes does have its merit. It's not a clear indicator of who is going to take home the gong next month, and should not be considered an Oscar warm-up in any shape or form. Its method of splitting film into two categories (Drama and Musical/Comedy) gives a greater opportunity for brilliant yet understated films to recieve some form of awards recognition.

It's not without a little controversy, however. Giving praise to the little man is an admirable trait, but nominating 'The Tourist' (as it did last year) seemed slightly out of the blue, considering the film had been critically condemned, and performed below-par at the US box office.

And then there's Ricky...

For a third consecutive stint, Ricky Gervais is returning to host the awards. Generating more controversy than any of his stand-up gigs combined, many thought that he'd finally severed the bond between himself and the HFPA, yet here he is again, and when it was announced, you could probably feel Hollywood's butt clench with the anxiety of having the British comedian return once more, utterly packed with witty anecdotes, biting remarks and I'm sure, one or two new Charlie Sheen-based zingers.

Anyway, on to the nominations.

Film

Best Motion Picture -- Drama
The Descendants
The Help
Hugo
The Ides Of March
Moneyball
War Horse

Again, you can never be sure with the Globes, and though I'm yet to see 2 of these films, I'm going to go with the general buzz and predict The Descendants to come out on top of an otherwise impressive looking group of films.

Best Motion Picture -- Musical/Comedy
50/50
The Artist
Bridesmaids
Midnight In Paris
My Week With Marilyn

Again, some heavyweights here; Bridesmaids was the smash hit, and could, like The Hangover did, shock some and take home the gong. Woody Allen's best film in years, Midnight In Paris, will be a definite contender, but I don't think I can look past The Artist in this group. I'm positive it'll win.

Best Male Performance -- Drama
George Clooney -- The Descendants
Leonardo DiCaprio -- J. Edgar
Michael Fassbender -- Shame
Ryan Gosling -- The Ides Of March
Brad Pitt -- Moneyball

Arguably, the top 5 male stars in Hollywood at the current moment in time -- and an incredibly close knit race. Gosling has had a terrific year, as has Pitt, both starring in at least 2 critically acclaimed hits. Fassbender continues to cement his A-list status, whilst DiCaprio is as popular as ever. However, Clooney will win here.

Best Female Performance -- Drama
Glenn Close -- Albert Nobbs
Viola Davis -- The Help
Rooney Mara -- The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
Meryl Streep -- The Iron Lady
Tilda Swinton -- We Need To Talk About Kevin

This one, I'm less sure about than any of the others. Again, cases can be made for each of them, and it's anyone's guess who's going to bag it, but going with the buzz, I'd have to pick Davis after she secured the Critics' award.

Best Male Performance -- Musical/Comedy
Jean Dujardin -- The Artist
Brendan Gleeson -- The Guard
Joseph Gordon-Levitt -- 50/50
Ryan Gosling -- Crazy, Stupid, Love
Owen Wilson -- Midnight In Paris

Withstanding any major shocks, Jean Dujardin has this in the bag.

Best Female Performance -- Musical/Comedy
Jodie Foster -- Carnage
Charlize Theron -- Young Adult
Kristen Wiig -- Bridesmaids
Michelle Williams -- My Week With Marilyn
Kate Winslet -- Carnage

Wiig surprised many in Bridesmaids, and was the driving force behind its success, I have no doubt. But I don't think she did enough to put off Hollywood's darling, Marilyn Monroe, aka Michelle Williams.

Supporting Actor
Kenneth Branagh -- My Week With Marilyn
Albert Brooks -- Drive
Jonah Hill -- Moneyball
Viggo Mortenson -- A Dangerous Method
Christopher Plummer -- Beginners

Split between three here, but do you remember Marlin from Finding Nemo? Do you remember Ross Cargill from The Simpsons Movie? Well, imagine the guy behind those playful voices as a psychotic mafia boss. Albert Brooks to win this one.

Supporting Actress
Bérénice Bejo - The Artist
Jessica Chastain - The Help
Janet McTeer - Albert Nobbs
Octavia Spencer - The Help
Shailene Woodley - The Descendants

My rule regarding The Artist didn't last long. This isn't a category I admit to being an expert in, but expect Shailene Woodley to garner some praise here.

Best Director
Woody Allen - Midnight in Paris
George Clooney - The Ides of March
Michel Hazanavicius - The Artist
Alexander Payne - The Descendants
Martin Scorsese - Hugo

Personally, I'd like to see Allen or Scorsese take this one home, but I believe it's a two horse race between Payne and Hazanavicius, and whilst I have a niggling feeling that Payne will win the Oscar, expect this to go to Hazanavicius.

Best Screenplay
Woody Allen - Midnight in Paris
George Clooney, Grant Heslov & Beau Willimon - The Ides of March
Michel Hazanavicius - The Artist
Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon & Jim Rash - The Descendants
Steven Zaillian & Aaron Sorkin - Moneyball

Take my rule about The Artist, and apply it to The Descendants as well, because Payne, Faxon and Rash (Dean Pelton from Community) have this in the bag, for me.

Best Animated Feature
The Adventures of Tintin
Arthur Christmas
Cars 2
Puss in Boots
Rango

Rango. Rango, Rango, Rango, Rango. RANGO...maybe Tintin.

Television

Best Series -- Drama
American Horror Story
Boardwalk Empire
Boss
Game of Thrones
Homeland

Ruling out the good, but severely overrated Game Of Thrones, and the perhaps slightly extreme American Horror Story, we're left with three. Boss, I know little about, but sense it's more about Kelsey Grammar's performance. Boardwalk Empire is always a safe bet, but I think the emergence of Homeland is something to be reckoned with this year.

Best Series -- Comedy
Enlightened
Episodes
Glee
Modern Family
New Girl

I love Zooey Deschanel, but New Girl is her vehicle, and only works because people want to see Zooey Deschanel. It's amusing at times, and she is a gifted comedy actress, but it doesn't hold up against Modern Family, which will deservedly win again. And again. And again...

Best Actor -- Drama
Steve Buscemi – Boardwalk Empire
Bryan Cranston – Breaking Bad
Kelsey Grammer – Boss
Jeremy Irons – The Borgias
Damian Lewis – Homeland

I've always rated Damian Lewis as an actor, and he undeniably rocks on Homeland, but this award may as well be called the 'As Long As Breaking Bad Is Airing, Bryan Cranston Has This In The Bag' award. I'd still expect Lewis to be nominated though. NOTE: Buscemi won it last year, but Breaking Bad has had its best season to date (which is saying a lot considering it's unmatched quality).

Best Actress -- Drama
Claire Danes – Homeland
Mireille Enos – The Killing
Julianna Margulies – The Good Wife
Madeleine Stowe – Revenge
Callie Thorne – Necessary Roughness

See above. Replace Lewis with Danes, and Cranston with Margulies.

Best Actor -- Music/Comedy
Alec Baldwin – 30 Rock as Jack Donaghy
David Duchovny – Californication as Hank Moody
Johnny Galecki – The Big Bang Theory as Leonard Hofstadter
Thomas Jane – Hung as Ray Drecker
Matt LeBlanc – Episodes as Matt LeBlanc

How they keep nominating Galecki for awards over co-star Kunal Nayyer is beyond me. Either way, I'd be surprised if he won, and am going to have to credit Matt LeBlanc with this one. It's been too long.

Best Actress -- Music/Comedy
Laura Dern - Enlightened
Zooey Deschanel - New Girl
Tina Fey - 30 Rock
Laura Linney - The Big C
Amy Poehler - Parks and Recreation

Not a clue. Zooey Deschanel would be my stab in the dark, considering she's universally adored.

The Golden Globes air tonight, January 15th. For those in the UK, I believe they're showing the Red Carpet and Ceremony on E! Entertainment. If you don't have it, I suggest you google or twitter a stream (if you're desperate).

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo -- Evil Shall With Evil Be Expelled.

2012-01-12T11:57:00.001-08:00

I'd argue that with the canvas a bleak and dreary shade of grey, David Fincher produces his best work (I'm of course talking about the brilliant 'Se7en' and the unnerving 'Zodiac'), yet his 2010 Oscar-darling, 'The Social Network' remains a stumbling block in this ill-conceived theory. 'The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo' doesn't quite step up to the formidable bar set by the tale of Mark Zuckerberg and his nifty invention, but what it does do, it does intensely well. Based on Stieg Larsson's best-selling 'Millennium' trilogy, and the subsequent Swedish movies, Fincher is efficiently able to give the story a classy polish, and really ramp it up a notch. It's brutal and unyielding and all the more better for it.

I'm unfamiliar with the literature, but the plot within is fairly 'police-procedural' -- Daniel Craig is Mikael Blomkvist, a disgraced journalist, reeling from the loss of a court case with a high-ranking Swedish businessman. This is essential to the plot as it gives Blomvist an excuse to vanish, escape the accusatory leers of those around him. Enter Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer, Captain von Trapp to many of you), retired CEO and the patriarchal figure in a dizzying family line-up. 40 years ago, his niece, Harriet, disappeared in mysterious circumstances from their family island, separated from the mainland by a single bridge. The murderer is a member of this excessive Vanger family which mirrors a who's who of sinister human beings (Nazis, some of them). Eroded by obsession, Henrik's mind is no longer lucid enough to continue his half-baked investigation. He knows all about Mikael, having had emo/goth hacker extraordinaire Lisbeth Salander pick apart every aspect of Blomkvist's life, gaining enough insight to know that despite his recent losses, he is 'clean'. Mikael takes up the offer, and delves deep into the murky past of the Vanger family, interviewing them one by one, uncovering their sordid past, and teaming up with Salander along the way.

There are many different narratives at work in this piece. The Vanger investigation features prominently, but there is nothing particularly fresh here. Fincher choreographs each scene with deft precision, using lighting and sound to sublime effect. It's incredibly eerie, the steep snowy hillsides shrouded in a dark mist, that is representative of the family that occupies the houses on top of the hills. No one speaks to one another, and when they do, it is harsh and enigmatic -- Mikael will have to keep digging. Yet, what brought life to the original, directed by Niels Arden Oplev, was the inclusion of Salander's character, portrayed then by Noomi Rapace, and portrayed here by Rooney Mara.

The girl with the dragon tattoo. Emblazoned on her back, spread carefully along her taut, pale skin. A ward of the state, she has been thoroughly rejected from every orifice of life. Yet, she is resilient, fiercely intelligent, and astonishingly strong. Mentally and physically. Rapace's depiction was of a woman beaten down, but determined to pull through, and come out the other end. She hid away behind her 'colourless' features, whilst Mara holds back no punches. Here is an actress that has gone all out, total role commitment, 100% -- she's extraordinary and steals every scene she's in. Doesn't matter if you're James Bond.

As with 'The Social Network', NIN frontman, Trent Reznor is back (with Atticus Ross) behind the film's soundtrack, and I fully expect him to receive another Oscar nod for a score which becomes a secondary character throughout the movie. You may not notice it, but alone on those dark, dank slopes...keep an ear out. Low at times, thumping at others, it aptly supplies the tense thrills Fincher is looking for, and Reznor's upgrade of Zeppelin's 'Immigrant Song', with lyrics provided by Karen O (from the Yeah Yeah Yeahs), is astonishing. The opening credit segment is truly stunning. A plethora of dark metallic figures, whirling around in a bath of hauntingly beautiful sequences, pumped by the incessant chords of 'Immigrant Song', and Karen O's resounding wails.

The film is better than its Swedish counterpart; an assured director at the helm, it is able to tighten up the narrative and complete the jigsaw. I read that the last segment is actually the epilogue of the first novel, and though it is barely touched upon in the 2009 Swedish film, Fincher devotes time to incorporating it into his picture, and flesh his characters out further. The final shot threatens to throw the film wide open, begin a new chapter in Lisbeth's life. Just as, for once, she might be able to explore a new happily ever after, Fincher slams the book shut firmly, right in her face, and I hope he returns for the second film. A master at work here.

The 10 Best Films Of 2011 (...that i've seen)

2011-12-30T09:04:00.000-08:00

At first, I think to myself that, in comparison with 2010, 2011 has not been a great year for films...

And then I think about the films I have yet to see, and the films that I have struggled to put into my top 10 and I realise that perhaps there is something there. Perhaps 2010 had 10 absolutely brilliant movies that 2011 has not matched, but maybe 2011 has 20 or so absolutely great movies. It's subjective for sure, but looking back on the year, the majority of decent movies seemed to have come out in the latter half (as always, with Award's season now in full swing).

I have not seen 'The Artist' (a French, silent, black and white film starring John Goodman...), I haven't seen 'Take Shelter' (I'm sure it will...blow me away :|), I haven't seen 'Melancholia' (I don't get Lars Von Trier, and never will), I've seen no freshly painted dragon tattoo, nor have I witnessed any wars ft. horses and I haven't seen any Iranian films this year. I have, however, seen over 150 new films this year (new to me, not necessarily new this year), so I reckon I could compile a satisfactory list.

But first, let us get some Honorable and Dishonorable Mentions out the way -- 'cause everyone loves to know who could have made the cut, but sadly, fell at the last hurdle.

Dishonorable Mentions

1. Battle: Los Angeles
Promised so much. Gave so little. Aliens attacking are cool, we've established this -- but we actually have to relate to the characters in this situation otherwise why the hell should we care about the Earth being destroyed?

2. Anything Green
'Green Hornet' -- 'Green Lantern' -- in serious competition to find out which one was the most boring.

3. Transformers: Dark Of The Moon
As far as 'storytelling' goes, Michael Bay is quite hopeless. I admire the way he takes on such ambitious visuals though, even if occasionally, no one has any idea what's going on as the robots look just like the buildings they incessantly smash in and out of.

4. The Hangover, Part 2
Might as well just have watched the first again on mute. No laughter. No difference. Yawn.

Honorable Mentions

1. Warrior
You can draw all the comparisons you want to -- 'Rocky' 'The Fighter' 'The Wrestler' -- it's predictable. You can guess what's going to happen a long time before it does, but I'll be damned if it wasn't the most riveting film I saw all year. Gripping, powerful, violent -- a stunning film full of stunning performances and well worth a watch.

2. Source Code
For a while, this was my highest rated film of the year -- I couldn't find much wrong with it. Sure, you can ask questions about the dead body/brain device, but it's such a touching movie that it's almost rendered as a superfluous sidenote. Once again, just like 'Moon', Duncan Jones manages to find the human drama within his ambitious concept and brings it to the forefront through great turns by stars Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Monaghan and Vera Farmiga.

3. Super 8
There's a scene in this movie (if you've seen it, you'll know which one it is) where I got chills. As wonderful as it was, it didn't balance the two elements of 'coming of age' and 'sci-fi' as successfully as I'd hoped. JJ is a great director, but perhaps he needs one or two more viewings of E.T. Either way, it's dazzling, ambitious and fun.

4. Hanna
I don't know what it's like to be a child actor, but Saoirse Ronan seems to have got the hang of it -- she's pretty damn good as a child assassin and though this movie can reach high levels of violence, there's a good hearty story at the core, and is constructed with deft hands by director, Joe Wright.

5. The Tree Of Life
This is a film that will probably be included on those '100 Movies To Watch Before You Die' lists -- it's unbelievably beautiful, as well as unbelievably pretentious. There was so much depth and meaning to it, not that I had the foggiest what that meaning was, but I knew it was there. A lot of it was unneeded, Sean Penn in particular, but the 'creation' scenes are so well done, and so alluring, that they really must be seen. A contemporary equivalent to '2001: ASO'.

TOP 10

10. Rango
"Now, we ride."

Rango was the movie I wasn't expecting. I'm not a huge Gore Verbinksi fan, and though my oddly inappropriate man-crush on Johnny Depp is still ever-present, I didn't have high hopes. What I discovered, was that this movie is one of those unappreciated gems which has humour and heart throughout. Not once did it fail to make me laugh, and not only are the visuals superb to look at it, but there's a real sense of hard work in trying to distinguish itself as a type of animation you haven't seen a lot of before. The vocals are lively, creative and all types of fun -- the story is strangely political, yet if you can overcome the first 10 minutes (which introduces Rango as a lizard in existential crisis), it pays off big time.

9. Beginners
"I don't want to just be theoretically gay. I want to do something about it."

Beginners is about a dying gay man. It's about the gay man's son dealing with his father's death. It's about the dying gay man's son's new girlfriend adapting to her new relationship. All at the same time. It takes advantage of the seemingly trendy 'non-linear' narrative and tells all the stories at once. It does it effectively, not once getting confused as to where it is. It's a real story, it's poignant, it's lovely, it's sad, it's funny. It features three performances from Christopher Plummer, Ewan McGregor and Melanie Laurent which propel it forward and it never once crosses the line with its sentimental wanderings. It's about love and loss, but it's never as simple as that. Thinking back over it, it never ceases to tell the story, never feels burdened by its subject, and comes out shining. A beautiful film that everyone should watch.

8. Submarine
"My mother is worried I have mental problems. I found a book about teenage paranoid delusions during a routine search of my parents' bedroom."

This film is directed by Richard Ayoade -- most will know of him from 'The IT Crowd'. He's making waves, that's for sure. Last year, he also directed an episode of the US sitcom 'Community' (this has no relevance to the film, but I just found out and thought it was interesting) -- this is one of those films that someone like me would love to have written. It's positively brimming with creativity and tells the story in an incredibly truthful manner which is hard to watch at times. There is no outside world nor is there going to be a brighter tomorrow. The hero won't ride off into the sunset with the girl nestled comfortably in his arms, because the real world isn't like that. This movie portrays that depressing truth, but it's so uplifting, that it hits home that much harder.

7. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
"All I want from you is one codename: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier..."

A movie that won't be for everyone. It's bloody difficult to follow. It's a spy movie without any large explosions, gadgets or jaw-dropping locations. It's made up of old men, chomping on cigars and pipes, covered in heavy drench coats, slinking through shadows in a very mundane, wet, and smokey London. It's all about the look and feel -- paranoia is at an all time high and like the movie characters, the audience is never quite sure who to trust. Everyone has a past, everyone has a secret. Little by little, more is peeled away until everything is revealed, not with a bang, but with a whimper. And that's how it fully intends it to be. This is a movie that is a true movie. It's created by a master of the art, and each member of the cast supplies their roles with a subtle, melancholic twist. There is a corruption within all of them, a darkness that manifests itself on the very streets they walk. Many of its audience won't appreciate it, but I put it on my list, and I'm sure the cast and crew are very happy to hear that...

6. 50/50
"No one wants to fuck me. I look like Voldemort."

A movie that could have gone so wrong. A comedy about cancer. Luckily, it gets it spot on, focusing the comedy on the situation in a way that never seems like its mocking the illness, but more about trying to improve the situation. An 'Every Cloud Has A Silver Lining' deal -- sure, the protagonist, Adam, is going to question everyone around him, there are going to be times where he is going to be at rock bottom -- he still has cancer -- but there's always hope, dished out by his supporting cast, consisting of his best friend, therapist, and mother. It navigates through the tricky pitfalls of the topic with careful hands, holds a lot of depth, and gives out enough to reassure even the most pessimistic of us out there.

5. Midnight In Paris
"That Paris exists and anyone could choose to live anywhere else in the world will always be a mystery to me."

I don't like Paris. I'm not a fan of the culture. Owen Wilson, in this film, certainly is. By the end, I am too. Life isn't a movie though, but its ability to take you somewhere else, to influence you in various ways is quite special. This is a beautiful movie, with a magical element that has graced some of Allen's films in the past, but feels refreshingly new here. It's got his usual knack for linking different characters through different means, and exploring relationships, but his journey into a different period of time opens up a whole new door of adventures and possibilities. It's good to follow a character like Gil (Wilson) who doesn't question his surroundings or how he came to be there, but accepts it. It makes it that much easier for us to do the same thing.

4. Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 2.
"Come on, Tom...let's finish this the way we started it. Together!"

The adventure ends. Though the ending was rather abrupt (no one asked about Voldemort...), I sort of appreciate the way they chose not to sugar the moment in sickly sentimentality -- however, they've not wasted a moment in previous films, so why feel the need now. Either way, the ending was a success. The actors have all come so far, learnt so much, and it all came together one last time. Visually, it was stunning. Absolutely stunning. I saw it at the BFI IMAX, and impressed is an understatement. The world of Harry Potter was brought to life in so many different ways over the last few years, and this one last effort brought it all together with a pretty pink bow -- magical. PUN INTENDED.

3. Hugo
"If you ever wonder where your dreams come from, look around: this is where they're made."

If you ever wanted to know anything about Martin Scorsese, know this. The dude loves movies. Adores them. Naturally, you'd think most film-makers have an affinity for the cinema, but with Scorsese, it's a way of life. He's one of the greatest directors in film history and this film is his love letter to the art he admires so much. I very much imagine that Hugo's relationship with movies mirrors his own. The scenes where the children watch movies such as Harold Lloyd's 'Safety Last!' and Melies' 'A Journey To The Moon' hold a lot of meaning. This is classical cinema at its very best -- jam packed with references that will mean something to more than just film-buffs, it's a way of promoting cinema. How many people dismiss film as pointless, something that doesn't matter when it comes to the sciences, and maths and y'know...other boring things (boring, but important -- don't argue). There are infinite reasons why people flock to the cinema -- your dreams can literally come alive, and you can join a world like Hugo. Visually, it's just as magical as the world of Harry Potter, if not more so. I didn't see it in 3D because I don't think I need to, but it's one of the few that I would suggest you see in 3D as if anyone can get it right, it's Scorsese.

2. Moneyball
"How can you not get romantic about baseball?"

I don't know a lot about baseball. I know less about maths. Yet this movie, which features both prominently, is 2nd on my list. That says everything. I don't like baseball. I like maths even less. What I do like, and admire, is persistence. I like the underdog story. It's a common theme in sports films, but when it's based on a true story, that aspect of authenticity really elevates the movie in my eyes. Take a character like the protagonist, Billy Beane, general manager of Oakland A's, a small baseball team in a larger pond, and his insistence on using a stats based method of assembling a wining team, and it works. Why? Because Brad Pitt is an incredibly gifted actor (you may not like him, but it's true) and his emotional need, his endeavor makes the film for me. You want to believe in someone, you want to believe that this man knows what he's doing -- that this team WILL win the World Series, and he exerts that confidence. Not once do you doubt the man. There is no time for sentiment, it's quick, sharp and Aaron Sorkin's script is as good as his recent Oscar winning effort with 'The Social Network' -- fantastic film.

1. Drive
"If I drive for you, you give me a time and a place. I give you a five-minute window, anything happens in that five minutes and I'm yours no matter what. I don't sit in while you're running it down; I don't carry a gun... I drive."

What a great year for Ryan Gosling. I've never seen 'The Notebook', but I imagine he'd rather be known for his role in Refn's stunningly disturbing tale of a stunt driver, who moonlights as a getaway driver under cover of darkness, and gets caught up in some rather nasty business. It's the most powerful movie I've seen this year, and it features a protagonist who utters about 20 lines throughout the entire movie. It's power isn't in the dialogue (there isn't a lot), it's in the actions, the music, the slow build of tension, the release, the trigger, the violence -- everything about it multiplies in unison, contributing to something larger and effective. None of the scenes are simply shot, yet that's exactly what they are. What I mean by this is that every scene is effortless. It's so easy to watch, it runs as serenely as the protagonist does in his own vehicle, yet each scene holds so much -- a 'blink and you miss it' deal. It is filmed in a style reminiscent of an earlier noir period, yet it's blend of violence and striking imagery correlates with a modern world awareness and desensitization of cinema violence. I consider it a masterpiece, and the best movie I've seen this year.

50/50

2011-11-28T03:22:00.003-08:00

50/50 is a very real film about very real people; somewhat of an aberration from Seth Rogen's usual collection. The key ingredient in unlocking success is to finely sift the humour (generated primarily by Rogen) into the tragic story of Adam Lerner (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a 27yr old radio writer discovering that those niggling back pains he's been experiencing for the past couple of weeks are actually the work of a malignant tumour, the name of which he initially has trouble in pronouncing (the more syllables, the worse it is). For the most part, I proclaim it a success -- it never strays too far into either territory and plays efficiently on the audience's emotions. You'll laugh, you'll cry, and you probably won't realise this is based on the true story of Will Reiser (the film's writer and friend of Rogen).

Rogen occupies the role of Adam's best friend, Kyle. This is the role he played in Reiser's real ordeal and here we see something genuine from Rogen, in contrast to his high-profile turns in 'The Pineapple Express', 'Superbad', 'Knocked Up' and to some degree, his highly underrated performance in 'Observe and Report'. Here, he is genuine -- a person we could come across in our everyday lives, and probably an accurate representation of what Rogen may be like off camera (but a tad Hollywood-ised).

The script takes a few liberties (I'd imagine) in order to make good on the 'never stray too far' deal; the story doesn't represent the repercussions and frailties that such a crippling ailment can generate, but it's not about that anyway. In essence, it's a feel-good movie about a man who did survive, and his tale isn't told to turn cancer into something to be laughed at, but to depict the experience that he and, unfortunately, many others are forced to live through, and to show how it can be dealt with through the support and love of family and friends. Some are able to cope, highlighted by Adam's mother (a smothering, yet sweet performance by Anjelica Huston), whilst others, like his girlfriend, Rachel (Bryce Dallas Howard) find themselves breathless, strapped into a corner, unable to break free.

Distilled as it may be, it's engrossing to watch how each character reacts to the news. The director, Jonathan Levine, has an easy job, allowing his adept cast to lead the way. Gordon-Levitt emobodies all the aspects of lost childhood; baby-faced, innocent and sullen, he's in fine form (as always) here. The support, Huston, Rogen, Dallas Howard and Anna Kendrick (playing Katie, Adam's young, inexperienced therapist) all play their parts, dot their i's and cross their t's. Yet, two performances stand out above all (bar Rogen perhaps), those of experienced actors Matt Frewer and Phillip Baker Hall playing Mitch and Alan respectively, two elderly patients suffering chemo alongside Adam. Both are small parts, but hold a lot of meaning. 80 years young, both convey the most positive aspects of Adam's journey. Getting high on weed-stuffed macaroons, tossing their ailments about as mere jokes, it was an oddly light part of the movie, when in contrast, the tone would darken when the jovial conversation landed on the whereabouts and support of Rachel (y'know, his girlfriend...)

It's a film that is worth watching because it evokes a strong sense of faith, survival and support in times of crisis. It is kept commercially viable but this doesn't hinder its powerful final act. It won't make many ripples in the Hollywood pond, but it'll be a film that you'll be glad you saw, whether it be for the talented cast, the subtle humour, the heart-wrenching story, or for Joseph Gordon Levitt's Voldermort hair-do (or lack of...).

10 Guilty Pleasures of 2011

2011-11-25T03:31:00.000-08:00

There is a certain breed of movie that pops onto our screens every once in a while, usually (I say USUALLY) lambasted by critics and glossed over with indifference by the paying audience. These are movies that perhaps you would have seen, but won't recollect --

-- at least that's what you'll say when asked about said movie.

One of the many great things about films is that they can truly divide an audience. Obviously there's a difference between saying something like 'I didn't like Schindler's List' and 'Schindler's List is a bad movie' -- one is an opinion, and the other is an incorrect statement. Yet what if the movie is considered to be a bad movie, yet you find yourself oddly drawn to it? A foul-mouthed tirade of insults, accompanied by bumbling jokes living up to the age-old cliche of being 'so bad, it's good'.

So 'ave a look:

1. Drive Angry 3D
Current Metacritic Rating: 44

What They Say: Over-the-top grindhouse formula.

What I Say: It's a movie called 'Drive Angry' and features the versatile genius that is Nic Cage as an undead vigilante who recklessly 'drives' across the country in a flurry of explosions, booze and boobs (sometimes all at the same time) hunting down a satanic cult and co-starring Bill Fichtner and Amber Heard, with a script crammed full of rampant one-liners, perilous threats, and vehement put-downs (*puts away thesaurus*) -- in a nutshell, it cannot fail.

2. Gnomeo And Juliet
Current Metacritic Rating: 53

What They Say: Weird, silly, too self-referential. Pixar-wannabe.

What I Say: I like Pixar as much as the next over-grown kid, but to expect every animation to live up to the standards set by Woody and Buzz is ridiculous. Though the film never hits the heights of a Pixar movie (Cars being the only exception) it is a creative and spirited take on a tale which had all but worn out its welcome. There are plenty of laughs to be had, and features a well rounded cast with the talents of Matt Lucas, James McAvoy, Michael Caine, Emily Blunt and Jason Statham. Kids will love it, their parents will love it, their slightly older kids will love it, and those that don't fall into any of those brackets will also love it.

3. Your Highness
Current Metacritic Rating: 31

What They Say: Scattered laughs at the usual phallus/sex/fart/old person falling over humour.

What I Say: Yeah, I can't really defend this movie -- it's a terrible, terrible film and deserves all the criticism it gets. Yet, there's no denying the well placed moments of genuine humour it does have, and the cast who, no matter how uninspiring the movie was at the box office, appear to be having the time of their lives. And fair play to Natalie Portman for following up the performance of her career in Black Swan with a role which I imagine will be a top answer in years to come on BBC's gameshow 'Pointless'. Danny McBride is a funny guy, and his brand of improv, in-your-face comedy is usually very entertaining and he has the impression of a guy who doesn't care immensely how his movie performs. He'll just stroll through the set, saying what comes naturally and putting on a good show for the audience.

4. Paul
Current Metacritic Rating: 57

What They Say: Fun, but never hilarious, nor successful.

What I Say: Whilst Paul doesn't fit into the category of being a 'bad movie' in any way in particular. It does feature the most generic looking alien you're likely to see in any contemporary movie for a while, smoking spliffs, coming onto women, and uttering about every swear word the script can come up with (and more, knowing Seth Rogen's knack for improvisation). It's not a believable movie in any shape or form, and will not change the way you consider the world, or anything Kubrickian like that, but it will provide good family fun for everyone, from fan-boys to the stuffy, impassive uncle that no one really likes. The mix of charm, good-nature and outrageous (Yo, fucknuts! It's probing time) outbursts will be enough to keep everyone entertained. OK, so maybe it's not 'family' fun.

5. Super
Current Metacritic Rating: 50

What They Say: No life and no idea of what it actually is.

What I Say: Ellen Page. She hoists this movie up onto her shoulders, and runs as far as she can with it (before having her head blown off). For a movie marketed as a dark comedy, there's actually very little comedy from its lead, Rainn Wilson, who has made his name in one of the funniest US sitcoms on TV. He mopes and stumbles through this film in a state of child-like depression leaving it to the youthful exuberance of Page to salvage any hope of praise from the critics and audience, and thankfully for him, she proves herself worthy. She makes the film what it strives to be so much so, that when she's not on screen, the movie is soulless, dull and in desperate need of the defibrillators to give it some life.

6. Scream 4
Current Metacritic Rating: 52

What They Say: Wearing out its welcome quickly. Can't get away with its 1996 hi-jinks.

What I Say: There is little doubt in my mind that Scream is one of the greatest and most influential slashers of all time. It took the archaic, dusty rulebook of Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday The 13th, gave it a good scrub, ripped it to shreds and then plastered bit and pieces of it into its own, modern rulebook. In Scre4m, and its new techno-enabled world, it's less of a rulebook and more of a memo, created on an iPad. It may explain the difficulties the film had in being able to achieve what it did in the original but nevertheless, it brings the franchise a much needed refresh, along with the giggles and the gore and its 'meta' story is enough to make us forget about the decaying corpse complete with bloodied-knife-in-back that was Scream 3. **shudders** (quick note, the writer of Scream 3 also penned Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen....)

7. Pirates Of The Carribean: On Stranger Tides

Current Metacritic Rating: 45

What They Say: Disjointed, noisy, irrelevant action scenes.

What I Say: Yes, they've milked this rum-stained franchise bone dry and I hear they plan to release yet another vehicle to propel Capn' Jack into the limelight, but c'mon, this flick was a far superior effort than the jumble-sale of convoluted plot lines that characterized 2 and 3. Gone was the sentimental soaked 13yr old love letter that was Elizabeth and Will (has anyone else tired of Keira Knightley and her bloody corsets real quick?) and in comes the slightly less muddled goal of living forever. Simple. Let's keep it at that. Depp is his usual, Penelope Cruz radiates charm, zest and many other positive attributes and McShane is callous as ever as Blackbeard. Action sequences are consistent, fun and original (sorta') and the refreshed score epitomised a return to form for a franchise which finally began to resemble the Disney ride it was based on.

8. Horrible Bosses
Current Metacritic Rating: 57

What They Say: Premise is promising but loses its way quickly.

What I Say: Who knew that 'Guilty Pleasure' was just a phrase used to veil the utterly ridiculous. Horrible Bosses is a concept based on a general idea, magnified into an extreme hyperbole and then tied up neatly with a well-rounded cast. It's one of the year's best comedy movies and brings more laughs than both 'Hangover' films combined (for me, anyway -- don't bitch and moan). The strength of 'The Hangover' was that it was based on a situation that can and probably frequently does happen. Horrible Bosses chooses to base itself on the impossible, but deals with it in a mature and almost believable manner -- with the exception of Aniston and Farrell's cartoon villain bosses -- moving itself from a wacky/absurd tale to the blackest of black comedies, sure to bring the laughs (Jamie Foxx's Motherfucka Jones is a particular highlight) and even though by the end of it, you're fairly certain that it took some rather large liberties with the narrative, you're satisfied that you've just watched a movie full to the brim of comedic talents and some real gems packed within.

9. 30 Minutes Or Less
Current Metacritic Rating: 49

What They Say: Disjointed narrative with laughs too sporadic.

What I Say: Similar to Natalie Portman, Jesse Eisenberg follows up his career-defining role with a rather more liberating movie which sees him play a pizza-delivery guy, caught in the middle of a bank-heist plot, conducted by, hey, Danny McBride again. Eisenberg teams up with Ruben Fleischer once more (Zombieland) in this black comedy, and though the script doesn't live up to its undead counterpart, the cast featuring Eisenberg, McBride and Aziz Ansari, are likable and breeze through their dialogue with relish and contribute to an entertaining, if not slightly too short, ride.

10. Tower Heist
Current Metacritic Rating: 59

What They Say: Usual Ratner offering of no-brains, but amusing sequences.

What I Say: Again, not a badly received movie by any means, but when it comes to Ratner, there is a certain acceptance that all disbelief must be locked away in an air-tight container. You've come to watch the ridiculous and to laugh at the interactions and sequences that would never happen in a Mike Leigh movie. From beginning to end, you will endure high-end stupidity from its talented cast, and you will not care, because that is the only way you will be rewarded. Eddie Murphy is the star of the show and brings the laughs in bucketfuls; he says 'bitch' and we laugh, that's how ensnared we are as an audience. Character is kept to a minimum and the movie never reaches the levels of previous efforts such as Rush Hour, but Tower Heist is amusing in its own sought out way, and deserves a place on the list.

Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows, Part 2 -- Reviewed.

2011-11-25T01:42:00.001-08:00

And so, the Harry Potter franchise comes to a rather majestic ending with Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows, Part 2 and I for one, found it a very satisfying end, yet I usually find some form of beauty in the way things end, whilst others tend not to share my views (I’m looking at you LOST).

The journey was always about Harry, Ron and Hermione and even though many of the more established cast members, such as Alan Rickman, were given juicier roles in this segment of J.K. Rowling’s saga, their screen-time was kept to a minimum, allowing us to follow the three heroes as they do battle with the forces of darkness. I don’t think anyone can have any complaints here, as the other cast members did what was required of them, and did it well. It was good to see Maggie Smith again as Minerva McGonagall take a more action-themed role, and I’m glad they were able to convince some of the older faces to return for the smallest of cameos, such as Gary Oldman as Harry’s godfather, Sirius Black.

Daniel Radcliffe has come a long way since ‘Harry Potter & the Philosopher’s Stone’ in terms of acting. I have usually been very vocal with my criticism of his performances, but I throw my hands in the air this time around, ‘coz the boy nailed it. Resilient, is how I’d label his performance; after 10 years, he knows his character inside out, and though he’s suffered more than most, Harry’s ability to stand up to these seemingly undefeatable foes and hit back has never been depicted so brutally, so vividly, by Radcliffe, than in his final appearance, just when he needed it the most. Backed up by the ever-reliable figures of Ron and Hermione, this movie never drags, it never bores, it never hesitates, not for one second and it is high-octane action from start to finish.

The decision to split the film into two parts was masterful; though I enjoyed Part 1, it ran a little too long and focused on sentimentality for too much of the film when we all wanted to see wizards attacking each other with colourful spells. This brings the special effects into the equation; they were very good. Very, very good. My advice is to watch the film in 2D though, as there is always going to be that slight discrepancy with 3D films and in particular, the awful art of post-conversion **shudders** -- my viewing wasn’t exactly ruined as one can appreciate the dazzling effects in either format, but it’ll save you a couple of quid and in my opinion, makes the film much more fluid.

In terms of relation to the book, I honestly haven’t read The Deathly Hallows for a long while, so it wouldn’t exactly be prudent to start comparing. You’re always going to have the people who claim ‘the book is always better than the movie’ and in a way, they are right, because books have so much more room for meaningless exposition. The film adaptation is a challenge because the film-makers need to choose carefully what is depicted and whether or not it’ll make sense to those who have only viewed the films. At the end of the day, I was taken in by the pretty shiny lights, and didn’t really care, but it was a satisfying movie and that’s why you’ll get value for money.

It’s not a perfect movie, and there are segments which made little sense to me, in particular, Voldemort’s (SPOILER) death (too late...). I don’t remember how he was killed in the book, but I do know that it wasn’t conveyed clearly in the movie. If I had to describe it, I would say his wand flew away from him mid-duel and he disintegrated for no discernable reason. I probably missed something (darn 3D...) but for a movie franchise which has been full to the rim of dramatic exaggeration (do you remember the end of the first film?!), I was very surprised how low-key the end was. Voldemort dies and Harry strolls back through Hogwarts – do people know what has just happened? Wouldn’t they ask Harry where exactly Voldemort is? As always, there are parts I would do differently and as a (ex) film student, perhaps I’m just being too critical. I did love the movie and don’t want to take anything away from it.

Overall, the franchise has been a successful imagining of J.K. Rowling’s world for me. The characters, the set pieces, the locations, were all captured perfectly and each director has brought something differently magical to their films. My personal favourite is still The Chamber of Secrets, but the way the films have got darker with each addition is something to really be admired and Deathly Hallows Part 2 is naturally the most grown-up film of the lot. No longer is it a coming-of-age story; Harry is in the real world, facing real grown-up threats. Danger, destruction and death face him from every direction in this film and it’s really quite amazing when you look back at the little boy who lived under the stairs all those years ago

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

2011-11-25T01:36:00.000-08:00

Featuring the creamiest of the English crop, Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is sure to generate a plethora of expectations, on account of its impressive cast, and also due to its background in literature. The film is based on a 1974 British spy novel (of the same name) from acclaimed author John Le Carré and is set around retired British intelligence officer, George Smiley (Gary Oldman, The Dark Knight, Leon, and so many more...) as he begins to discover the most shocking of skeletons in the most scandalous of closets.

I would compare the film, rather obscenely, with any of the three monstrosities that make up the Transformers film franchise, in that like any one of those films, I’d unequivocally place Tinker, Tailor... at the very tip of the filmmaking spectrum. The glaring difference, of course, being that the films occupy separate sides; the best and the worst of contemporary filmmaking, if you will.

The film scrupulously succeeds in painting the right picture and displaying it for the audience to see – a grim world, positively dripping with the smoky stench of paranoia, deceit, murder, and creating an image of the Cold War which can be felt from beginning to end, highlighted flawlessly in the opening scene, depicting a British agent, Prideaux (Mark Strong, Kick-Ass, Sherlock Holmes), meeting with a Hungarian contact in order to root out the identity of a mole, who has burrowed himself into the very heart of British intelligence. That’s where the magic lies, in the orchestration of events, the flow of exposition, the tone – imagine Tim Burton without the whimsical side – the well-dressed Secret Service men who stumble around each other, cigarettes hanging consistently in between their lips, stony expressions not giving anything away, heavy faces hiding heavy secrets.

Of course, the aesthetic brilliance of the film is merely part one of this heavily-layered labyrinth. There’s a story within these walls wrapped tightly and woven intricately in with Thomas Alfredson’s (Let The Right One In) astute direction and it’s a ‘blink-and-you’ll-miss-it’ type deal. There will be no big finale, no loud explosion, no chiming Hans Zimmer score to accompany a majestic final revelation. What you will be left with is a tale that twists delicately between past and present, heedfully dropping hints at the right moments, taking George Smiley, and his Watson-esque assistant, Peter Guillam (Benedict Cumberbatch, Sherlock), and indeed its audience, to all the appropriate locations and informants as the truth unravels in some rather startling scenes.

Again, I sing the cast’s praises – actors such as John Hurt (Alien, The Elephant Man), Oldman, Colin Firth (The King's Speech, A Single Man) need very little introduction, and all play important roles here, which they devour with a melancholy ambivalence. No one is there to bowl you over – the film’s protagonist is Oldman, and reliable as ever, his performance is as assured as Alfredson’s direction. Grey-haired, grey-faced, his somnambulist attitude to his duty as well as his personal life is always seemingly at ease. The supporting cast is magnificent, featuring the previously mentioned Mark Strong, the recently established Tom Hardy (Bronson, Inception) and the BBC’s new boy Cumberbatch. All fit into this tale in an instant, understanding their place in the affair, and contributing wholesomely.

James Bond, it ain’t. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is slow, deliberate, thoughtful, thrilling and as uneasy as any film relating to the Cold War should be. It’s a world shadowed not in black, but grey, and we are guided through the corruptness of higher powers by Smiley’s moral principles, Oldman’s performance, Alfredson’s certified talent, and a laid-back yet daring script, each doing their part to create perhaps a masterpiece, and one of the best films of the year.

Retrospective Review: Children Of Men

2011-11-24T04:56:00.001-08:00

I hold my hands up and admit that as good a film student as I was (my words), I had never seen Alfonso Cuaron's Children Of Men until last Monday night. I'd like to claim that my film workload was too much of a burden, and prevented me from watching...y'know, films...but truth is, there's probably quite a few modern classics out there which haven't gotten the time from me they whole-heartedly deserve.

So, banging through them one at a time; Children Of Men.

One thing I must immediately brag about, not for myself but for the film, is how it is able to look past its 'Sci-Fi' tag and dig a little deeper. This doesn't just include its lack of special effects, but its very vision of a dystopian society set in Britain which holds numerous political and social overtones. As the last standing government worldwide, the UK intends to be, in a way, a Utopian state, but the influx of asylum seekers from, what I imagine is a global scale, has dissolved into into a police state, where foreigners are locked up in cages, segregated from the last traces of humanity, viciously beaten, and slaughtered.

The concept drives this notion -- there are no children. Two decades of infertility have wreaked havok on Earth and two significant scenes characterized this perfectly for me:

1. The film's opener. The youngest man on Earth was 18 year old -- heralded as a celebrity for this status, the movie begins with a news report on his death (anger after he refused to sign an autograph). The pictures that follow, the grieving public, the riots in the street, it draws comparisons to images post-9/11. The loss representing the pain and suffering of a childhood all but abolished.
2. Our protagonist, Theo (Clive Owen), visits his cousin, a government official, in order to secure transit papers for a young girl. In the corridor of his home, Theo comes across Michaelangelo's David. Stood resolute, for all to see, like a pot-plant, or family portrait. In 100 years, there will be no one left to remember any of this. "I just don't think about it" is the solemn reply.

Clive Owen is very good here, and due to the wicked nature of his surroundings, his character's development happens almost instantaneously. He's very much given up on trying -- he's a former activist, turned civil servant, and he's accepted the world he occupies a place in. Nothing can save them now -- until one poignant scene, where the young girl he's agreed to travel with, removes her top, revealing a 'miracle' -- after 18 years, he's just come across the very first pregnancy. From then on, it's not a tale about motherhood, about caring for the youngster -- it's not about saving a world which is destroying itself, one street bomb at a time. It's very much about hope, resolution and faith -- the pregnant girl, with so many religious connotations, holds the key to everything and the film has a unique way of getting that message across.

Generally, when a movie contains as many action sequences as Children Of Men, the director will spend hours in the post-production room with the Editor, cutting it here, inserting shots there, rapidly criss-crossing through the scene, across different perspectives, to give a sign of the kinetic and frenzied attitude of the action. Yet here, Cuaron stretches his single-shots for as long as 10/15 minutes, tracking his characters, following them through the decaying rubble and muffled background explosions, never leaving them in their actions. It's innovative, choreographed with immense skill and meticulousity, and adds a touch of grace to the grey, mundane setting.

An example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en16i8BY4hI

I admire the film for never losing focus of what is important, and neither do its characters. They are just like me and you -- there's nothing special about them whatsoever, they just want to survive. How would we feel if Theo came across a massive revelation at the end, including government conspiracy, the answer to 'everything' etc? It doesn't matter, because there is no reason, and there never has to be one. Cuaron presents us with the action as it unfolds, with very little use of exposition and as a result, we are right there in the film, a visceral experience like no other.

A must-see.

Tower Heist

2011-11-15T09:06:00.000-08:00

Brett Ratner is a predictable, predictable man. That's what I told myself last Wednesday morning before heading up into town to my local cinema to catch his latest offering of brainless Hollywood hi-jinks. Gay slurs aside, Ratner's films usually come with a set of expectations for most --

Fast-paced? I suppose so.
Incoherent plot? You betcha'
One or two fleshed out characters, anyone else is a glorified prop? You said it.
Mind-numbing stupidity? What did you expect? Chinatown?

And I'm pleased to report my expectations were met, with interest!

Now let me tell you all about how that isn't a bad thing, without ever resorting to classic 'it's only a bit of fun' judgement. It don't work for Michael Bay, it won't work for Ratner. A budget of $80million for a 'bit of fun'? Dream on, sunshine.

The movie begins with some really quite fabulous shots of the Manhattan skyline, and as we jump down on to a private and luxurious swimming pool situated at the very top of The Tower, a cute dollar bill (don't quote me on that, I'm British and don't know American dosh -- the difference between a nickel and dime baffles me) imprinted on the stagnated pool floor, we should realise then how very one-dimensional this affair will be.

Characters are required to be motivated -- they need to want something, and in order to get this 'something', they need to be pushed. The film makes use of its early rounds by introducing us to the odd assortment of goofballs we will be lending our hopes and sympathies to throughout the movie. Most of them work at The Tower, and find themselves fired early on for aggravating the owner, Arthur Shaw (Alan Alda) (who has just been arrested for fraud) -- now Josh (Ben Stiller), Charlie (Casey Affleck) and Devreaux (Michael Pena) find themselves sitting at home, nursing a grudge against the man who apparently lost them their jobs. But wait? Josh THINKS there might be a safe in Shaw's penthouse suite. They can steal it all back, true Robin Hood style -- all they need now is the black criminal (Eddie Murphy) and....Matthew Broderick.

So back to motivation. Paper thin depictions of 5 men desperate for a bit of cash, for themselves, for their co-workers, I don't know -- we don't need to know, it's not required that every single character is plucked apart for their entire life, interior and exterior, to be explored to a tee. I think it's safe to say that the movie generalizes the capital factor -- if there's enough dosh to be gained, that's enough for me, you and Ratner.

Hollywood at its finest.

The heist itself is Ocean's 11 for the Twilight generation (no offence intended....sort of) -- we're going to walk in, block out the security cameras, pray to God for an insane amount of luck and cut away at the seemingly impossible bits to divert the audience's attention to another character who contributes very little, but gets in there with a few snappy one-liners for giggles.

The positives are all in the performance. Eddie Murphy is a likable, talented actor, as is his opposite number, Stiller. Two unique brands of comedy working head-to-head and it comes out, guns blazing, to great effect. You will laugh, sporadically maybe, but there are genuine laugh out loud moments. You probably won't understand why 20,000 thousand New York(ians/ers?) can't seem to spot a Ferrari 250 paved with gold hanging out of the top floor window with 3 figures defying gravity swinging about left, right and centre, but it worked for Rush Hour, didn't it?

Ratner is a good director, and he knows how to make shots work. You'll like the film, I have no doubt, and I don't think anyone associated with the film expects it to break any boundaries nor do they wish it to, and I say kudos -- nothing wrong with that. It's just a bit of f...

Bazinga.

2011, so far...

2011-11-15T08:20:00.000-08:00

I haven't seen a lot of new films this year, and the films that I have seen are massively mainstream and hardly stand out from the crowd.

It's very difficult being a University graduate, what with the empty pockets, the moths fluttering out my wallet every time I open it -- when you've recently completed a film degree, it's even bloody harder. Hence, getting anywhere is usually quite a mission, and my options are limited, so I make do with the Odeon and their crowd-pleasing blockbusters which rake in an obscene amount of cash week after week, including my own hard-earned (cough cough) money.

But, I digress.

Last year was a wonderful year for film. All 10 nominations for the biggest of big prizes (the Oscars) were fully-deserving of the honour and in my opinion, any one of them could have taken home the gold.

This year, not so much. Perhaps the hidden gems are cautiously peeking out from the respective hiding places, ready to launch themselves out during December, stunning us all into submissive praise and appreciation. Let's hope so --

What have we had this year? We've had the Superhero epics -- Captain America, Thor, X-Men: First Class, Green Lantern. The first 3 all had their moments and whilst they offered little but cheap popcorn thrills, they did it with the budget on their side, and with visual flare and the occasionally decent performances. Green Lantern was the chewing gum on the bottom of your shoe. Only less entertaining.

The Harry Potter saga came to a magically explosive end with Deathly Hallows, Part 2 -- again, another SFX-laden extravaganza which made good use of its astronomical budget and excited audiences in both 2D and 3D (you know, that cinema technique which offers cinema-goers a brand new experience which they wouldn't get anywhere else...).

Pirates splashed.
Transformers crashed.
Apes smashed.
Ryan Gosling amassed...

It's not been an awful year, but a so-so one -- no film, bar Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, has truly knocked my for one, but it's during this season where the award darlings tend to show themselves.

We Need To Talk About Kevin begins to sound in the deep -- a whisper here, a wayward comment there. Word begins to spread.
Martin Scorsese gives birth to perhaps another masterpiece.
Spielberg gets over the brainless, attractive fun that was Tintin and releases guaranteed sob-fest, War Horse.
Matt Damon buys a zoo.
Fincher reinvents Swedish goth drama.

A lot to look forward to. Maybe.

Until then, I'll give a run-down of my top film picks of the year:

Drive. Absolutely.
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Positively.
Senna. Not just for the F1 fans.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2. No doubt.
Beginners. Charming.
Cave Of Forgotten Dreams. If you're into Herzog.
Rango. Unpleasant fun.
Source Code. Smart, high-brow entertainment.

and Jack and Jill.....two Sandler's = double the fun (at least, that's how I'd market that aberration).

**clinks glass** Here's hoping for a strong end to the year.

Focker, out.

Lol?

2011-11-14T09:07:00.000-08:00

I almost forgot about this until my good friend, Gabriel, updated his own musings and...stuff.

I'm hardly in the mood to channel Dickens through my words this evening so I'll make it short and sweet.

I've seen a lot of new films in the last few days and I'm telling you, nay, begging you....

Go watch Drive.

127 Hours

2011-01-14T14:26:00.001-08:00

Slumdog Millionaire was nominated for 10 Oscar Awards, winning 8 of them, including Best Picture and Best Director for Danny Boyle. 127 Hours probably won’t be nominated for that many awards, nor will it nab any of the top honours; in spite of this, it’s a much better film than Slumdog...

My problem with that film was how contrived the plot was; I mean what are the chances that every single question this kid has to answer on a game show represents his life in a perfectly chronological order? The final question relating to the three musketeers was as predictable as the sun rising in the morning. 127 Hours, however, follows a true story, and though the majority of the viewers will know exactly how it’s going to end, the journey will be worth it. When reading about a significant event, either in the news, or a book recounting the ordeal, most directors of Boyle’s calibre will see it as a film; they’ll picture in their head how they would make every little scene drip drama, suspense, and Aron Rolston’s biography ‘Between a Rock and a Hard Place’ was a story Boyle had been dreaming of telling for 4 years.

127 Hours is an amazing film. It doesn’t require an extensive, complex overlapping plot. All it needed was a competent director, a star, and a crew dedicated in bringing Ralston’s tale to our attention. It’s exactly what we get. Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past couple of months (no pun intended), you’ll know the story of Mr. Rolston. He was a daring mountain climber, who in 2003, travelled to Blue John Canyon in Utah. Why? That doesn’t matter – it’s a hobby. Maybe he likes the release, the sense of freedom. I imagine that’s why anyone who climbs up, and jumps over large crevices without any safety ropes, do what they do. He neglects to tell anyone where he’s going. Long story short, he falls, trapping his right arm underneath a large boulder. He endures 5 days at the bottom of a large canyon, with little sunlight, little water, little to do, and little hope. On the fifth day, he makes the decision to amputate his right arm with a multi-purpose tool. A tiny, inefficient excuse for a blade, he cuts through his own flesh and bone, and escapes, losing more and more blood, before being found wandering through the dusty canyons, and choppered to immediate aid. I do love a happy ending.

It won’t be for everybody; many viewers will be turned off by the lack of movement for what Boyle describes as an ‘action movie with no movement’. The amputation scene is incredibly visual and visceral. Even those hardcore gore fans who sit through the torturous, despairing displays that are the latest additions to the Saw franchise, will have a difficult time preventing that quick glance away as Aron begins to cut through his own veins. Though most know this scene will be coming (as the obvious talking point), the film cleverly adds ominous overtones forewarning us of it’s inevitable arrival, beginning with a shot of Aron reaching around for his penknife before leaving on his journey, but his reaching fingertips fail to make contact. I confess to feeling a bit queasy afterwards, because the film did its job. The gritty, bloody imagery of a man pulling away from the jagged remains of his own forearm will do that to you though. It seemed ridiculously real, and as a film portraying real-life event, it was bang on the money.

Boyle directs this movie with his usual creative exuberance – the film is stylishly made, cutting back and forth with Aron’s past which represents the hallucinations he continues to experience at the bottom of the cold canyon, he sees his family, wishing he could speak to them one more time, telling them how much he cares for them and how much he wishes he could have a second chance with the woman he loves. The kinetic energy the film exudes is impressive, and it’s hard to keep your eyes off it. It’s cinematography is stunning, craftily juxtaposing the harsh, depressing reality of Aron’s situation with the beautiful, vast scene of nature.

Aron is played by James Franco (The Pineapple Express, Spiderman), an actor who has proved himself as an adept actor, earning a Golden Globe for his hilariously charming role in Pineapple Express, and I tell you now, he’s guaranteed to go one further with 127 Hours, and a great chance of bringing home the gold – ultimately, if Colin Firth hadn’t agreed to star in The King’s Speech, Franco would be favourite – but whatever the outcome, the young actor has a great future. His performance here is exceptional. Portraying Rolston as a confident, knowledgeable, and resourceful man, he expertly guides the audience through the film with the way he engages us, and makes him feel for us so that by the end, the emotional outcome really kicks in.

It’s a wonderful story of determination, fighting for survival and hope; it’s beautifully made by Boyle who once again manages to achieve great success by changing genre, and meeting and breaking conventions. It’s definitely worth your time at the cinema, and features a great performance from Franco, flawless cinematography and great input from A. R. Rahman with the movie’s turbulent score (the best thing about Slumdog...) and is a real treat to watch on the big screen. I’d recommend you don’t view on a full stomach though. It won’t end well.

8.6/10

10 Best Films of 2010

2011-01-06T12:13:00.000-08:00

Ok, I didn't see EVERY film in 2010 but I saw a good deal of 'em -- and I was very impressive. I'm very looking forward to compiling this list. I'm not gonna' rant on for too long, mainly because I don't have much to say, but here is my top 10 film list of 2010...

1. The Social Network -- brilliant script by Aaron Sorkin, delivered perfectly by Eisenberg and Garfield. Direction from Fincher was utterly amazing. Deserves the Oscar.

2. Inception -- a lot of pretentious film buffs would rebuke this film as 'a mess' -- but they just have no idea. Nolan has spent so much time developing this film, and it is truly amazing to see. It's a great idea, and whilst Nolan has polarized audiences with a script riddled with enigmatic tidbits, you can't deny that the film is...well it's just great.

3. Winter's Bone -- Mesmerizing in every sense of the word. Subtle, yet powerful. Beautifully acted by Jennifer Lawrence and John Hawkes, and a really great setting. I enjoyed this so much more than I thought I would.

4. Toy Story 3 -- has to be seen in 2D, so as not to rape you of your nostalgia. The guys are all back and it's as smart and funny as ever it was. Not to mention the added tears towards the end. Great ending to a great trilogy.

5. Black Swan -- Riveting, yet absolutely horrifying at the same time. The subtlety of Portman's transformation is masterful. She's amazing and deserves the Oscar. Similar to 'The Wrestler', but the places it will take you to could not be more different.

6. The Town -- great direction from Ben Affleck in this crime/thriller which whilst not offering anything new, is stylish and well made, and great performances from both Affleck and Jeremy Renner (Hurt Locker) make it tense, and very much worth your time.

7. Shutter Island -- Not Scorsese's best, but it's very well made. Keen film buffs will appreciate the noirish tone it employs and it's a grand film. Di Caprio is at his best and we're guided through the film on a rollercoaster of emotions.

8. Kick Ass -- Don't think anyone expected this film to be what it was. The script was nothing but masterful and the action was top notch. Not just another superhero movie, but the story of a boy who wished it was.

9. How To Train Your Dragon -- A lot funnier than I thought it would be, and both music and visuals were consistent throughout. Really enjoyable for the family.

10. Uh.....I gonna' give it to....nothing.

I'm leaving the spot open as I'm seeing '127 Hours' next week. Whilst it's UK release date is 2011, it still counts as 2010 so I'm pretty sure I'll be updating this.

But yeah, that's how it stands so far.

2011 -- A New Start

2011-01-06T12:12:00.000-08:00

Well, my plan didn't really work out there. I had hope to get a lot more reviews out, but I guess University kinda' got in the way.

Thanks to my one follower for y'know...following me. Much appreciated, even if you've never read any of it.

2011 will be different. I'll be getting a lot more reviews out, and really cool features, and hoping to expand my followers...somehow.

I'll figure it out.

Anyway, onwards...

5th August -- Kick Ass!

2010-08-05T14:27:00.000-07:00

This is the second time I have seen 'Kick Ass' -- I saw it in the cinema when it came out after much hype and controversy. I'd read a lot of reviews saying a lotta' different things and I can understand that watching a 12 year old girl call a bunch of blokes 'c**ts' (can I swear? What is blogger's policy?) and then proceed to slice 'em up, impale them, shoot 'em, blow 'em up, bite 'em....is perhaps not certain people's idea of entertainment.

I, however....thought it was fucking cool! Taking place with the Tra La La Song (actually it's name) was a stroke of genius. Matthew Vaughn rocked this one, and kicked some serious...butt.

It's about one kid's desire to be a superhero. He is the traditional geek who finds himself at the bottom of the barrel, getting pushed around, not getting anything fair -- and it all seems to be following the conventional super-hero story. In one scene, he attempts to fight a pair of thugs and I thought as the fight started 'well, now -- here we go. He's gonna' beat the shit outta' em, and become a super-hero, and fight crime...'

...then he got stabbed. Run over...and almost died.

And we, like Dave...are brought down to earth with a violent, bloody thud.

This is not a superhero movie, if anything -- it aims to poke playful fun at those kinds of movies. Deep down, it's about a kid growing up, and wanting to be something more than he is, a thought shared on a global level. Matthew Vaughn takes this notion, and like any good filmmaker, he colours it in. He makes it something more, and he casts Nicolas Cage...which was awesome.

The movie is incredibly graphic, I'm not familiar with the graphic novels, but I assume they are just as 'graphic' -- there have been comments about the violence saying it's completely gratuitous. I can't say I really agree with that, because as mentioned, this movie aims to ascend a comic book movie -- it's real life, and if people try this in real life, they're going to get hurt....and have their legs chopped off by prepubescent girls...

So, Dave becomes Kick-Ass. And people are pretty psyched about it. It's exciting stuff. Meanwhile, Big Daddy and Hit Girl, a father and daughter vigilante duo are secretly training hard and killing off men connected with Frank D'Amico, a local mobster. Big Daddy (Cage) harbours some serious strong feelings towards this dude, the man who ruined his life, and was responsible for his wife's death. Frank's son is Chris -- who wants nothing more than to also grow up and be something better...however he wants to be the next Frank...who kills people. So that's a problem...
As films do...all this mixes together and it's pretty damn entertaining to watch. Some great lines, great great action, particularly from young Chloe Grace Moretz as Hit Girl who is a treat to watch. The final confrontation plays out as any big action blockbuster does, but it manages to maintain enough about it to resemble one complete movie. The jet pack may have been a bit too much, but fuck it -- it's not completely about reality in some cases.

Same Day -- New Film = 'The Apartment'

2010-08-05T14:06:00.000-07:00

Billy Wilder's 1960 classic features Jack Lemmon and Shirley Maclaine in perhaps one of the best movies I have and will ever see.

In terms of comedy -- a lot of films are thrown about these days. The more educated population will maybe toss in names such as 'This Is Spinal Tap', 'National Lampoon's Animal House' -- the others will divulge trifle (in comparison to these great names) such as 'Anchorman' and anything from the library of Adam Sandler.

I sit in between. There are 3 types of comedy films in my opinion. There are the films that attempt to go for outrageous humour with obvious visual gags and one liners and ridiculous situations and parodies -- usually directed by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer or The Wayans brothers. Then come the animated features which in some cases tend to do the same, but as they are cartoons, they succeed, and have more focus, balance and appeal. Then there are the films like 'The Apartment', a film which finds the balance from minute one, and contains it consistently throughout inviting dramatic conflict to pair up with comic genius and have the two crackle and sizzle in one hell of a movie.

The film tells the story of C.C. Baxter. A life-long bachelor who at first appears to be some sorta workaholic, but is revealed to be a man who is so determined to get to the top, that he allows those higher than him to rent out his own apartment when they wish to do the dirty on their wives. He makes the contacts, and happily seems to work his way up -- all the way to the top where he meets Jeff Sheldrake -- the man in charge. Jeff is also doing the dirty, with the lift woman, Fran (Maclaine) -- a cute but unattainable girl who is also admired rather unsubtly by Baxter. It follows this love triangle throughout the movie, the situations staying remarkably calm despite Fran even attempting suicide. This is what I mean by the balance -- it's beautiful. It's such a remarkable film that I wish everyone would see it. It's really that good.

It deals with human characters in a very usual situation -- with this in mind, it becomes a drama. Yet we have the genius that is Jack Lemmon playing C.C. and he is perhaps one of the funniest men ever to grace the screen with his presence. His actions, his delivery, expressions -- not since Buster Keaton in 'The General' have I seen such skill at making what I'm sure is a bleedin' hard job seem like no trouble at all. Effortlessly funny for the entire movie, it is a wonderful performance...and from the supporting cast too.

I read earlier that the movie was great inspiration for 'American Beauty' by Sam Mendes and that Kevin Spacey dedicated his performance to Lemmon. This alone indicates how great the movie really is. It ascends anything that Will Ferrell casts off as comedy these days, and the script is so perfect that it reminds me of slicing through warm butter. It's easy, it flows, and it feels really good (IT DOES).

This is a great movie, and I recommend it to everyone. I'd also recommend using a tennis racket as a strainer. Absolute genius, buddy boy...

4th August 2010 -- 'Where The Wild Things Are'

2010-08-04T09:31:00.001-07:00

So, the first film to make it onto this blog o'mine is Spike Jonze's coming-of-age family/monster movie -- the 2009 hit, 'Where The Wild Things Are'

Just to clarify -- I'm not writing 'reviews'. These are just my own thoughts about the movie, I don't intend to constructively criticize of suggest what may have been better or the general content of a film critic review.

Actually -- that's silly. Of course I do -- just don't think of it as a review, because that makes all this seem far too upscale and pompous. I'm just a kid, with a big bucket of popcorn. A dog chasing a car. I'm happy.

Anyway, the film is about this small kid called Max. He's....odd. He's got a wonderful adventurous spirit which I hate in kids, and he's got the usual contempt for his mother's new male-friend. These two combine and result in him biting his mum, and rushing off, hopping on a boat, and arriving at some random island where he meets large monsters. They think he's a king and has the ability to keep them all together. They eventually realize he's not, and get a lil' bit lairy with him. He decides it's time to go. Hops back across the pond. Arrives home, all is forgiven.

I gotta' start off by emphasising that this movie bloody well scared me -- the monsters are frickin' freaky. Judith (Catharine O'Hara -- Beetlejuice, Home Alone) is some sorta' goat monster with razor sharp teeth and a bloody huge horn on her nose. She describes herself as a 'downer' -- I'd describe her as...uh...something really scary. They were some freaky beings -- Max even ended up in the stomach of one of them, and like him, I felt myself holding my breath at points. Monsters are unpredictable, kids are unpredictable. Imagination is unpredictable -- for all I know, they coulda' gobbled that exuberant lil' bastard in a heartbeat...

I'm not very technical -- I don't know how they did the monsters -- special effects, puppets -- men in suits -- whatever the weather, the monsters had that desired effect of being placed between the worlds of reality and imagination.

On the outside, the film clearly inhabits a sense of family, change and abandonment -- it ties 'em together with a pretty ugly and furry bow. Seen through the eyes of a kid, it appears as if he can't win. We all remember those times when we needed the attention, yet are parents and siblings either gave us too little or too much. Nothing was good enough, and I felt the actor in this position, Max Records -- did a grand job. He displayed an innocence which was vital to any coming of age story, yet his 'wild' side was all so apparent in certain moments, such as the opening scene as he chases his poor defenceless pooch around his house, wearing a wolf suit.

On the inside, the film's undertones are so much more -- a question that has to be asked is 'Is this place real?'
I'd say no -- and that's where I think the film's flaws lie. Imagination
is NOT as powerful as reality. Within the imagination, the mind can do things which as the viewer, we can do nothing but marvel at. But in this case, the imagination felt empty. It lacked something more powerful, an anchor perhaps...
I know what I mean, but to put it into clear, cohesive sentences at the moment is not do-able. Something about it didn't have enough depth for me.

The voice actors were all very good, adding something different to their characters. I liked Carol (James Gandolfini -- The Sopranos) and Ira (Forest Whitaker -- The Last King Of Scotland) -- I felt their names and voices were identifiable and were the two most important 'Things' to Max. KW (Lauren Ambrose -- Six Feet Under) was also a great character for Max, and was placed in as the sister that Max doesn't feel he has anymore. These characters don't want to grow up in a way, they want to be together, and sleep in piles, and do whatever it is that they do, and when Max first arrives, this is all he wants too -- so it'd make sense for him to stay. As the film progresses, in Max's mind, he knows he has to leave -- he has to return to reality. To his mum -- and this is the development. He knows things will have to change -- it's the way of the world. People grow up, and move on -- have relationships -- meet different people. It's inevitable, and Max is the one who makes this decision in the end -- it's heart-wrenching. But if he had stayed any longer...he woulda' been eaten.

What It's Good For...

2010-08-04T09:26:00.000-07:00

As a film student, naturally I tend to watch films -- not because I have to...but because I really have to...

When watching films, a lot of nonsense and random ideas and thoughts pop up in my head, and I never have the chance to write them down -- so it seems like a bloody good idea to jot them down somewhere and I really don't fancy writing it down -- so I'll blog.

I'm not too bothered if people don't see it, but it'll help me organize my own thoughts.

In fact, perhaps I'll be the only person to ever post on here. That's kinda' scary -- right now, I'm just talking to myself. It's eerie, and it echoes. Quite frankly, it makes me seem a tad sad as well. Especially as I thought of all this a good paragraph ago yet have continued to write....

Enjoy...

If you do stumble across, or if I know you -- please agree or disagree with me, or perhaps just...y'know. Do whatever it is that you do.