A Hundred Worlds A Day

Would you pay $1,000 for a Blu-Ray?

2011-03-29T08:41:00.002+01:00

This kinda says it all.

How much is a good Blu-Ray worth? Universal Studios certainly hopes that $999.99 isn't pushing it too far. According to /Film September 6th is the date that you'll have the opportunity to show the world just how much you love Scarface with a Limited '1000 copy run' edition on Blu-Ray. What could this possibly come with for a grand? Considering the movie in question, I struggle to imagine anything short of a truck full of finely cut cocaine would live up to such a price.
But that's not what you get. No, you get something arguably better. You get a " hand-painted humidor crafted out of untreated Spanish cedar". One of only 1000! It's entirely possible I may have just died a little inside.
Honestly, I can't begin to fathom the idiocy involved here, They're charging $999.99 for a Blu-Ray with some new extras and the crux of the deal is that you get a goddamn box? There is no way that a responsible studio can justify trying to make almost $1million on a thousand wooden boxes, I don't care if they were hand-crafted by Al Pacino from the wood of his recent acting. It doesn't help that the extras sound just as unrewarding; a scorecard that keeps count of uses of the word 'fuck' and the amount of bullets fired? It's not as if the internet hasn't had this sort of miscellaneous-meets-ridiculous information covered since the birth of online geekery.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a sucker for special editions. Regardless or not of whether I'll watch them, I'll always buy the maximum amount of discs available with a movie and yes, I was the guy who bought the Night Vision Goggles edition of Modern Warfare 2. I'm not proud of it. But this...this is my limit. I'm making a statement and putting down a firm answer to Universal's (literal) million dollar question:
No.

Originally posted on Screened.com on March 29th, 2011

The Porn Post

2011-03-24T09:20:00.001Z

Disclaimer: This is a blog about pornography and it's place as a medium. If you do not feel comfortable reading an article that delves into these matters, you should probably stop reading immediately.

It doesn't matter if you watch porn or not. It has nothing to do with anyone else and little to do with this article, because regardless of whether or not you do watch porn you have an opinion about it. You have assumptions and considerations about that industry and you might even have problems with it. Take the latter, there: a lot of people seem to have problems with porn. It's one of the last great social taboo's and although by the day that particular wall is being chipped away at by people who become more vocal about sexuality it'll never really fall.

So people are becoming more vocal about it? Of course they are, it's not an overnight thing and it's not even as bad as it sounds. 'Becoming more vocal about it' sounds almost braggy and show-off-ish, so perhaps a more appropriate way to phrase it would be that 'people are becoming more comfortable with it' in the same way that 'people' (generally, as a society) have become more comfortable with sexual diversity, with transgender (although Chrome doesn't seem to believe that 'transgender' is even a word, fascists!)
But back to brass-tacks, how do we know people are becoming more comfortable with it? Well, check out the media for one. Hollywood has always been an industry to run scared whenever they're afraid of offending anyone so when approaching how society has evolved, or devolved as the case may be, over the years, never be afraid to look at cinema. Compare two films with distinctly sexual overtones spread decades apart, Lolita (1962) and Closer (2004). If you've never seen these films, my point is simply that by modern standards, Lolita is an absolute safe way to play sex in movies, whilst Closer seems positively crass. And let's not forget the hot-topic in motion pictures this year seems to be sex for the sake of sex with two movies carrying out that premise in No Strings Attached and Friends With Benefits. Nevermind that both of these movies probably end up following the tedious Rom-Com plot development from the second act onwards, the concept is the important part here.

So we've established, we're more comfortable than ever regarding sex in any facet of our culture. Why does that not necessarily apply to porn? There are, clearly, no concrete answers to be found but I think it's primarily as a result of peoples pre-ordained opinions on porn-stars and why they're involved in the industry. Any number of movies will make reference to porn-stars being attractive girls with daddy issues and close the book right there on them and it wouldn't especially surprise me if that was the case with most people if you were to ask them about their opinions on porn-stars, if you were capable of redirecting the conversation from the rote "Well, they're quite attractive." route. With the birth of internet-porn about a million jobs opened up for attractive girls to make a quick buck and quite like teenage models or strippers a lot of girls have been known to get involved in this industry solely to put themselves through college. But then some stay and some sign up for the first time after having finished college.
One of my more eccentric hobbies has been reading blogs of porn-stars. It probably started out as an attempt to see what sort of backlash they would throw against anybody that criticised their decision to be involved in pornography but the thing that struck me most was how genuine they seemed. These are people who have jobs, more interesting than most, sure, but also more criticised. The porn industry made changes and moved on after just about everyone working in the 70's got AID's, but public perception of the industry seems mostly the same. Take for instance the blog of Asa Akira. She's a Japanese porn-star, fairly new on the scene over the past year or two and her blogs, whilst perhaps not as spell-checked as some, offer an insight into what sounds like a professional and diverse opportunity for work. She explains in detail how she's been trying new things which have altered her immediate opinion significantly and how she is genuinely enjoying her work. Could this be pro-porn propaganda? It's entirely possible, but not especially likely. Porn isn't something worth arguing about because there are enough people who enjoy it (whether in secret or not) and those who don't simply won't be swayed. For those not convinced, why not check out Stoya's more personal blog, which acts more like anybody elses blog but incorporates thoughts on the porn industry from time to time. Take for instance Stoya vs. The Facebook (that link is Not Safe For Work) in which Stoya muses on her web-relevance due to her not having a Facebook page and even goes so far as to criticise the User Interface (really, how many porn-stars did you think would have any idea what a UI is?)

Porn will never really be accepted by society as a whole. It certainly won't ever exist on the same level as cinema does and it really shouldn't. You can call them both films, sure, but they have entirely different points and purposes. As much as I'd like to see a genuinely artistic porn film, I doubt we ever will, but we don't need to have that to simply look at porn-stars for the people they are. I've never understood the disdain with which people have always spoken about the industry, I've never understood the criticism. It's pretty weird how much porn-star's personal perspectives clashe with public concensus. It's pretty weird how much I agree with them.

Also posted on Screened.com on 24th March, 2011

Video Game: Batman: Arkham City Trailer Dissection

2011-03-16T05:59:00.001Z

So I was just checking out No High Scores who had found this new Batman trailer on RPS, who seem to have found it on IGN. Quite frankly, it's pretty awesome.

More Batman: Arkham City Videos

I'm really digging the way this trailer works for a number of reasons. It's got a great aesthetic to it, showcasing the mix of gameplay and cinematics that made Arkham Asylum work so well. The music is pretty fantastic and as well as being thematically appropriate has a real gritty buzzing tone to it that sort of reminds me of Angel by Massive Attack. And of course, there's the gameplay which looks pretty identical to Arkham Asylum, aside from maybe some more set-piece oriented bits such as avoiding helicopters whilst gliding (or, you know, gliding straight onto them.)

Let's break this down from the beginning:

"Your presence creates these animals..."

The trailer opens to credits in classic Warner Bros. style, incorporating their logo (as well as the DC & Rocksteady logos) into the world in question. Worth noting that the images are utilising that really cool black & white colour palette, with heavy emphasis on the white, as if everything has been blasted with light or it's a super snowy day. It's a cool look that's really worked with the advertising so far and sets a really dark tone.
Hugo Strange appears and muses about the possibility that the reason Gotham City is so screwed up is Batman's fault. It seems that the game is going to be asking questions that you'd expect to see in the Nolan Batman Universe, citing the possibility that all these freaks seek out Batman because, like The Joker from The Dark Knight, they're all the same sort of lunatic, just on opposite ends of the same scale.

From there we get a brief glimpse at what life is like in the new urban prison. We see thugs kicking each other to the ground without mercy, other lunatics patrolling a great sign that simply reads Arkham City and helicopters performing patrols, likely to keep an eye on the 'inmates'. Most of the thugs seem like the same basic fighters you'll remember from Arkham Asylum but every now and then you'll come across one that is wearing heavy make up with green spray-painted hair. You can guess who they work for.
Over a radio or intercom a voice rings out "Confirmation of prisoner 4-0 in the courthouse." Implies that there are places that the inmates are not supposed to go within this city, or even that when the authorities need to extract a prisoner, they might need to actually man some sort of a search party. It's all rather speculative at the moment but goes to show that giving prisoners a portion of a city to just go friggin' nuts in is a pretty bad idea.

"You could say we're of two minds."

Next frame is Two-Face kicking in a door to find Catwoman suspended upside down over a vat of, what looks like, bright green acid. He pulls a gun to her face and growls "Heads or Tails, kitty-cat? He then pulls off his signature coin flip, which is shot from an angle a few feet above him. This whole sequence is really tightly edited and it,along with that aforementioned soundtrack, is what really sets the tone. I'm digging how Two-Face isn't entirely above the odd joke. Although there was nothing wrong with Aaron Eckharts performance in The Dark Knight, I really love how these Batman games are slightly cartoony, just in a remarkably dark fashion. As I said in my review of Arkham Asylum, it's this sensibility that grounds the fiction in the narrative of the old cartoon show, but shows that these games are for the kids who watched that show but have now grown up.
Batman comes gliding around Gotham, swooping down from great heights, then using his grapple to hoist himself back up before swooping back down again. This appears to be a function similar to that of Just Cause 2, except for physically possible and as a means to simulate flight, as opposed to just grappling the ground so you don't die. Naturally, Bats finds a group of thugs and proceeds to knock the living stew out of them. The freeform combat looks mostly the same, you get to do multiple takedowns at the same time now, which is pretty cool. It probably won't spice up general combat that much but it doesn't especially need to when you consider how amazing the combat was in Arkham Asylum. Post thug-bashing, Batman grapples onto a helicopter and silently hangs onto the landing gear, surveying the city below.

"It would be a shame to get blood all over my nice new outfit/"

Dropping down, he finds a host of thugs along with my favourite character from Arkham Asylum, Harley Quinn. Appearing now sporting attire much more akin to that of a playing-card themed stripper than a nurse (you can't fault her for appropriate fashion sense) Harley makes a quip before cracking Batman around the head with a freakin' Baseball bat. I don't care if you're Batman, that shit has gotta hurt and it looks like it does as he crumples and the screen does that flashing white thingy that it's been doing every 30 seconds or so.

(For what it's worth, I feel surprisingly little shame when I admit that Harley is just about the most wierdly alternatively hot super villains I've ever seen in these games. I remember when the first screenshots were coming out of her in Asylum and a bunch of fanboys were crying that she's been slutted up too much but I dig on the contrast between being a super-villain and dressing like a prostitute. It adds another level of subconscious darkness to the whole affair.)

We then get a look at Batman, sneaking around being all stealthlike. The Detective Mode is still absolutely in play with this game but seems to almost be a bit more digital, with grids flashing briefly as the UI expands. Next up is a very brief glimpse of Batman gliding amidst a flurry of gunfire. The fire seems too rapid to just be that of an assault rifle, so my guess of turret gun or helicopters. I'm kinda hoping helicopters, because c'mon, how cool would a dogfight as Batman be?!

"Purrrfect."

Straight after Batman is back on the ground talking to Catwoman, when he pulls her aside quickly and we see that a green laser was pointed directly at her. Just as she's out of danger a bulletshot echoes and the wall splinters. Evidently, someone wants Catwoman dead in Arkham City, more so than Batman considering he was right next to her the entire time. I'm certainly curious about how that plot thread plays out. "That was dangerous," Catwoman purrs, looking tinto Bats eyes, "I like it."
From here on, a few more shots of Batman gliding down and then away from an exploding tower or some sort, possibly that of a church. Finally a lush sweeping aerial shot of Batman sitting atop a gargoyle, overlooking the scum of Arkham City, Gotham.
And then you get a white background with a logo, followed by pre-order and date details along with a message to find them on facebook.

"I'm an agent of chaos."

After those 'credits' we hear a voice. "It was all a lie. There's nothing wrong with you."
Enter The Joker, literally walking towards the screen. "Nice of you to say," he grins, "But you of all people should know...there's plenty wrong with me."
It's good to know that The Jokeris going to be retaining his old psychotic sensibilities but what was apparently not wrong with him? After effects of the venom? Perhaps, he's been declared legally sane? Yeah, sure...
I suppose we'll all find out in October.
Any thoughts? Feel free to leave them in the comments.

Also posted on Giantbomb.com on 16th March, 2011

Film Review: Star Wars: Episode III-Revenge of the Sith (2005)

2011-03-16T02:52:00.000Z

What Star Wars has always done well is basic storytelling. Regardless of the little details scattered throughout the course of the story, The Original Trilogy is essentially a fairytale set in space and it seems that as writer-director George Lucas attempted to broaden his horizons to the political spectrum of the universe he'd created, the illusion began to fall apart with The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones. With Episode III-Revenge of the Sith, the story comes full circle with few questions left unanswered and no plot thread of merit untapped but perhaps more importantly it comes closest to capturing the tone and feel of a true Star Wars movie.

Following the end of Episode II, Revenge of the Sith picks up with Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) and Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) hunting down the last few leaders of the Seperatist movement, introduced as opposing the Republic in Attack of the Clones. Immediately following the most engaging space battle since A New Hope, Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) of the Republic Senate appoints Anakin to the Jedi Council, in an attempt to corrupt the young Jedi. Despairing over his newly pregnant wife Padme (Natalie Portman) and a series of visions he has concerning her death during childbirth, Anakin turns to Palpatine to learn if the Dark side of the force could hold any answers for saving her.
Compared to the attempts of the previous two prequels, Revenge of the Sith has a more focused presentation choosing to focus on the more emotional dynamic of the core characters than having their world of political intrigue propel the plot. There is plenty of weight to the transition Anakin makes because it his fuelled by a desire to save a loved one, something that anybody can relate to and as events run to their natural conclusion there is little doubt that love is the key motivator as opposed to descending down to the ranks of evil simply for the sake of it. Subtle layers of persuasion are added to Anakin's decision as he seems to become more distressed with his view on the world, initially acknowledging the terrible nature of his actions but eventually being so overcome with confusion that he begins to believe the lies that Palpatine feeds him, accusing the Jedi of conspiring against the Chancellor, the Senate and even himself.

The political aspects are still vaguely in play, the Seperatist movement in particular feels much more fleshed out than it's decietful introduction in Attack of the Clones, mostly thanks to the introduction of General Grievous, a hulking droid powered by the organs of his once human frame that serves as a primary antagonist for the first half of the film. Although Grievous is little more than a monstrous opposing force for the Jedi to defeat, this aspect helps clear up the role of the Seperatists in the saga, showing them to be merely pawns in Darth Sidious' continuous game. Otherwise, the politiclal aspect of Episode III relies heavily on the human aspect, such as Mace Windu's (Samuel L. Jackson) persistent suspicion Palpatine and Palpatine's own development into a power-hungry dictator complete with a silver tongue, convincing the Senate to not only grant him unlimited power but to let the Republic devolve into an Empire under his heading.
The characters are all portrayed pretty naturally by their respective actors, almost all of whom have had two films so far to find their balance. The major shift in power that occurs throughout the galaxy towards the final third of the movie allows everybody to play around with their characters presentations, Obi-Wan standing out as dissecting from an master of Zen shaded cool to an individual both angry and utterly distraught at his apprentice's betrayal. The Computer Graphics department also deserves credit for managing to so truly capture a sense of distress that the entirely CG Yoda (Frank Oz) envelopes towards the end of the film.

The technical side of things is as you'd expect from a film-maker working in this galaxy for almost 3 decades as the sets glimmer and shine with a radiant appeal. The dim-picture issue from Attack of the Clones is not present in any capacity throughout Revenge of the Sith. The only scene that one could make an argument against is the battle on the lava planet of Mustafar wherein the final battle occurs, but truly the ever present streams of light glowing from both lightsabers and the burning molten rock counteract any dimness with insane flashes that could burn your retina if seen in IMAX. Speaking of that final battle, it is perhaps the single most well crafted technical and artistic accomplishment of any Star Wars film to date, and easily the most accessible slice of action the series has offered. It feels like the final design after a culminated series of evolutions which, one could argue, all the preceeding lightsaber duels were, from the slow-dance tapping of the original A New Hope to the balletic frenzy that first came to our attention with The Phantom Menace. The duel itself is a visual feast and probably the most full example of the skills of a Jedi showcasing close up sword-action, Force Powers and gloriously well choreographed athletic skill.

There are few distinct criticisms to be levelled against Episode III but it is by no means the best Star Wars film available. When compared to The Original Trilogy like it's two predecessors it never really finds a tone that matches those of the classics. This is arguably a good thing, as it allows the new movies to stand on their own merits, something that Revenge of the Sith is probably the only recent new Star Wars film to do. Similarly, Revenge never really manages to find the sense of quotability that the original had, relying mostly on references to lines already said or even occasionally, straight up lifting dialogue straight from the old movies. These references are always nice for older fans but really limit the lasting appeal.
The biggest fault of Revenge of the Sith is probably the decision to cast Padme to the sidelines for about 90% of the running time of the film. Her role in the film is literally to appear and announce her pregnancy at the beginning and to be present for the final moments of the film. Considering the entire emotional crutch of the story is Anakin's desire to save her life it would probably have aided the flow of the movie to have their love expressed more clearly, but it never really is. It's a sign of the quality of Christensen's performance as Anakin, willing to give up everything for a chance to save the one he loves that the movie functions perfectly capably without Padmes presence but it would have been nice for a little more.
Finally, there is that moment where the entire balance of the Star Wars galaxy shifts dramatically. This point in the film is well displayed and remarkably effective. As much as it makes sense, though, it feels slightly undeserved and out of nowhere. The command that changes everything, Order 66, has no set up at any point prior to its unravelling and introducing some hints to it could have certainly benefited the moment where audiences realise what is about to transpire.

Star Wars: Episode III-Revenge of the Sith is the moment of divergence for not only the two Trilogies in the Star Wars chronology but also for two Eras within the Galaxy that this series chronicles. It is not the best Star Wars film, but could be the most emotional and awe-inspiring. If nothing else, it manages to make up for the middling or even bad instalments that it follows directly on from and closes out the saga in an entirely fitting fashion.

4/5

Also posted on Screened.com on 15th March, 2011

Film Review: Star Wars: Episode II-Attack of the Clones (2002)

2011-03-14T05:41:00.001Z

After the lukewarm critical reception to Star Wars: Episode I-The Phantom Menace you might think George Lucas would revisit the script for Attack of the Clones to ensure that the same mistakes wouldn't be made again. But really, who can honestly say that nearly a billion dollars in ticket sales wouldn't enthuse them to charge forwards, full steam ahead?
Attack of the Clones is a fairly dire film in all aspects. All the mainstays of the Star Wars franchise are included solely to satiate the appetite of the general fan but few of these aspects work within the structure or runtime of a two and a half hour movie. To say that Attack of the Clones is the worst Star Wars film is an understatement; the only way you can do this trainwreck of a movie justice is to simply accept that it is a bad movie.

Set approximately a decade after the conclusion of The Phantom Menace, Padmé Amidala (Natalie Portman) is now a young woman and concluded her term in the royal seat of Naboo. Now an Senator, she finds herself in a state of constant peril, following an assassination attempt which claims the life of a decoy. Due to her close ties with current Senate Chairman Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) the Jedi council agrees to place her under the care of two of their most trusted agents, Obi-Wan-Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) and his young padawan Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen), both of whom have a history with Amidala from the events of The Phantom Menace. Following a subsequent attempt on Padmé's life, Anakin is sent to guard her on Naboo whilst Obi-Wan follows a lead which suggests that the Republic or the Jedi Council may have ordered for an army of clones to be manufactured on a secret distant planet called Kamino. As Obi-Wan uncovers a conspiracy regarding this army, Anakin struggles to deal with the guilt of leaving his mother on Tatooine a decade prior, as well as accepting how to deal with his reignited affection for Padmé.

Firstly, it's entirely worth noting that for some reason the entire look of Attack of the Clones seems to have a slightly darkened shadow cast over it. Perhaps it's an attempt to visualise the transgression that Anakin is slowly but steadily encompassing but in reality it just makes the film look dim and ugly. With such grand canvasses as the planets of Coruscant, a utopian looking maze of infinitely tall skyscrapers, Naboo, an organic and archaic seeming garden planet, and Kamino, a planet that appears to be 90% water with sleek structures poking out above the ferocious waves, it's a stunning consideration that dimming the picture throughout the movie was a conscious decision. Despite this grievous flaw, the craftsmanship behind the design and the effects, be they practical or computer generated, still shine through enough to make experiencing these places an entirely worthwhile endeavour.

As far as the plot goes, the film feels dissociative for a good hour or so of the running time with Obi-Wan and Anakin's experiences being entirely separate for the entire second act; whilst Obi-Wan seeks to unfurl the tangled web of lies that students of the darker side of the Force have laid out, Anakin falls deeply in love with Padmé, decides not to get too involved due to his role as a Jedi and then promptly goes on to discard any responsibility he thought he was upholding by committing slaughter en masse once he finds the creatures who have kidnapped his mother back on his home planet. The back and forth between these two parallel plot threads means that the film never really finds an atmosphere or tone that it can stick with and so shuffles repeatedly between emotional-angst and political intrigue without any real sense of correlation. By the beginning of the third act, some strategic planet-placing on Lucas' part throughout the galaxy ensures that these two plots can eventually re-converge quite conveniently, but by this point neither stories matter much any more as the heroes are forced to fight mostly for their lives.
Throughout all this, there is a sub-plot concerning so called Seperatists from the Republic who have become aware of the corruption, but for the first two thirds of the running time they're only ever mentioned in snatches of dialogue, and by the time the leader of the Seperatists, Count Dooku (Christopher Lee) enters the frame, it becomes evident that these Seperatists are clearly not to be trusted. Although Lee plays Dooku with a wonderfully evil smirk, it destroys any notion that the arguments he's making for Seperatism hold any ground whatsoever.
With regards to the cast, there's not much to say about anybody involved...each cast member is completely capable but without any of the light-hearted humour that the original trilogy is often fondly remembered for, like The Phantom Menace, it is difficult to connect to any of the characters portrayed. It's a somewhat bizarre turn of events when you find yourself relating to the droids C-3PO (Anthony Daniels) and R2-D2 (Kenny Baker) over any of the sentient life-forms in the film. Concerning Christensen as Anakin, it's difficult to avoid falling into the popular trap of criticising him right off the bat: his performance does feel fairly stiff and overly focused but if anything this makes a lot of sense when taking into account the character. Anakin was raised as a normal child (despite being a slave) for a good five or six years longer than most Jedi apprentices would be, at which point he was taken from his home and thrust into a life of extreme training, both physically and mentally. If anything it is only natural for him to feel somewhat conflicted in regards to just about any emotion he experiences and I can imagine someone in that situation struggling to emote the way that most people do. It might not be the best performance in the series (and is construed by many to be a particularly bad performance altogether) but personally, I felt the Christensen's performance grounded the character in the reality of his situation.

As a Star Wars fan I can't help but enjoy Attack of the Clones because it has everything that I come to the series for: lightsabers, philosophical meandering and excellent set design. That said, I like Attack of the Clones the minimum amount I could appreciate a Star Wars film. Without lightsabers this is a film I simply wouldn't recommend at all and can only passively point it out as a capable movie to other hardened fans now. If you've decided to marathon the Star Wars series, all 6 films, you need to watch Attack of the Clones, purely for continuity reasons but at no point do you especially need to enjoy it. As far as general viewing goes, you would be better off with any other entry to the series.

2/5

Also posted on Screened.com on 14th March, 2011

Film Review: Star Wars: Episode I-The Phantom Menace (1999)

2011-03-13T04:50:00.001Z

Hitting cinemas across the world 16 years after the chronological end of the primary timeline, Star Wars: Episode I-The Phantom Menace made a grand sweeping entrance at the box office but ultimately failed to impress hardened fans or critics. Lucas may have appealed to younger audiences with his futuristic graphics showcase but 12 years later, how does the the beginning of this space opera hold up? Surprisingly well, actually.

As the film opens to the iconic fanfare and the much-pastichéd wall of text introduces the basic premise it becomes evident that this new-age Star Wars is catering to a different audience entirely: gone are the cookie-cut villains and instant-story of good vs. evil. Enter instead a distinctly metaphor-ridden tale of the dastardly Trade Federation looking to invade the Republic protected planet of Naboo, unless negotiations are settled with great immediacy. Arriving aboard the Federations headquarters are two Republic commissioned Jedi Knights, Qui-Gon-Jinn (Liam Neeson) and Obi-Wan-Kenobi (Ewan McGregor), acting as diplomats to secure those negotiations but soon the Federation reveals its true nature in a lethal attempt to dispose of the Jedi.
Naturally these two Jedi escape and begin on an adventure to escort Naboo's Queen Amidala (Natalie Portman) in order to take her to the Republic Senate of Coruscant, halfway across the galaxy. Along the way they come across young Anakin Skywalker (Jake Lloyd) whose reflexes and skills display a potent concentration of Force-activity.

Now if you're an established fan of the Original Trilogy and none of the above makes any sense, don't worry. This is ain't your Daddy's Empire and all these ties are established in due course. If you've never seen a Star Wars at all, it might be worth starting with the original trilogy. Although Lucas attempts to explain the importance of the Force and the power that a Jedi Knight has (or what a Jedi Knight is at all) the original 1977 Star Wars (later titled Episode IV-A New Hope) does a much better job and frankly, half the explanations are clearly aimed at a much younger audience and seasoned fans will pick up on many of the overtones and implications by default of being familiar with the original films.
The themes explored in this instalment are interesting and intelligent, if not explored especially well. The relationship between the Trade Federation and the Republic is curiously close to young peoples perception of priorities from the 90's onwards, with materialism and politics becoming conflicting interests more and more as time goes on (although this notion has arguably been diminished by the rise of the Obama administration circa 2008, refreshing young opinions of political possibilities). Regardless,the extent of this comparison is limited by the nature of perception only and it doesn't seem especially likely that your local Virgin Megastores is going to deploy an army of droids into the heart of Ohio anytime soon. The sense of foreboding that all Star Wars fans will have about Anakin becoming a Jedi is glossed over by his 9 year old giddiness at being noticed by anybody at all and the Jedi Council more or less dismisses his abilities solely because he is too old to be trained as a Jedi as opposed to because any of them sense any real danger regarding the notion. Managing to discard these central themes so willingly, The Phantom Menace simply does not live up to any of the Star Wars films as an in depth space opera.

As an enjoyable sci-fi romp, Episode I is somewhat hit-and-miss. It's ultimately a bit too self serious, understandable when considering the dark arc that the Star Wars prequels need to pull off but there doesn't seem to be enough of a balance. Whenever we do get minor injections of humour it's usually at the expense of the Gungan creature Jar-Jar Binks. As an almost universally hated character (by established fans, anyway) perhaps the most impressive feat George Lucas pulls off with Episode I is managing to create a new type of racism, albeit one exclusive to the kingdom of nerds across the world. For what it's worth, although the jokes made at Binks' expense are usually utterly bland and without any real merit, the Gungan himself is not entirely intolerable. Perhaps the most suffering to be had throughout the run time of The Phantom Menace is at the hands of Jake Lloyd who whines his way through just about the entire movie. As great as actors such as Liam Neeson, Natalie Portman and Samuel L.Jackson (playing Jedi Council Master Mace Windu) are, Lloyd is so insufferable as Anakin that he forms absolutely no meaningful connections with any of these, or any other characters throughout the running time. When he's not whining, he's happy in that over-the-top fashion that only a child actor can produce and any attempts at creating cute humour with him is completely and utterly squandered.
The action in Episode I is remarkably sparse with perhaps two notable battles and one hover-pod race. Spread out across the 2 hour, 10 minute runtime, this leaves plenty of space in between for hardcore exposition,which the film dispels ad-nauseum but when it ramps up it's entirely worth noting that Lucas does a damn good job of maintaining the action. The podrace is nothing short of breathtaking and handled with an almost delicate flair that frankly he would have done well to extend to the over-wrought actors. The tension is ramped up during this race as inconsequential racers are smashed and blown to smithereens right up until the final moments. If not for the final lightsaber duel, this would have certainly been the most engrossing moment of the film.
But oh, that lightsaber duel. It was 16 years between Return of the Jedi and The Phantom Menace and Lucas goes out of his way with CG scattered everywhere from backgrounds to vehicles to half of the damn cast (and all of it holds up surprisingly well for a 12 year old movie, it's worth noting) but none of that especially matters in the face of the new and improved duels. The new technology must have made the 'saber effects particularly practical because the energy with which the cast hurl their energy swords around is utterly remarkable. There are tricks and stances, stunts and elaborate motions achieved in seconds of Episode I's finale that most people couldn't achieve if they were to dedicate their lives to practising the art. The fluidity of the motions is simply a sight to behold and I cannot credit the actors and stunt-people enough for stringing together what is still one of the most effective face-off's in movie history, as far as I'm concerned anyway. Extra credit goes to composer John Williams for his Duel of the Fates track which adds an extra level of light-blasting punch to the proceedings.

Ultimately, it is difficult to recommend Star Wars: Episode I-The Phantom Menace as a film, or even as an inclusion to the series. It attempts to play with current (for 1999) cultural attitudes and set up an atmosphere but never really achieves either. Perhaps with another set-piece or two, those flaws could be forgiven but ultimately, nothing can forgive the dire performance Jake Lloyd puts in, except perhaps for the updated lightsaber battles. In the end, it wasn't the new CG aliens that Lucas sold for gold, it was the good old fashioned swashbuckling, but with some fancy lights.

3/5

Also posted on Screened.com on 13th March, 2011

Film Review: I Am Love (2010)

2011-03-08T00:40:00.000Z

My experience of Italian cinema is probably not what it should be. Whilst French or Korean films have a real aura of down-to-earth grittiness about them, Italian cinema has always struck me as seeming entirely pretentious, a great deal of unjustified artistic shots flung about to cover up a distinct lack of content concerning the plot. With all that said, if I Am Love is as pretentious as any Italian movie I've come to loathe it can be forgiven. it has so much to offer that some slight overindulgences can easily be forgiven.

To describe the plot of I Am Love is akin to describing the plot of an individuals life, it really doesn't work. The driving narrative focuses on an affair but it takes a good hour of the movie to even begin to suggest what will occur. Instead, we are initally introduced to the wealthy Recchi family, who live off the success of Edoardo Sr. (Gabriele Ferzetti) and his textile factory. The opening shots are of preparations being made for a lavish dinner party in celebration of Edoardo's birthday and the no-expense-spared attitude is in a way, entirely underwhelming; although the sets and food has an elegance to it, the richness of it all is never fully exploited allowing director Luca Guadagnino to place the emphasis upon the relationships between all the family members. This proves to be a wise decision as the characters are what will keep you watching, as opposed to the insatiably colourful wardrobes or even the striking architecture that the film exploits.
Tilda Swinton plays the lead, Emma Recchi, the Russian born wife of Edoardo's son. Her ability to merely exist in a family and a culture that is not hers is fascinating and her alienation, although perhaps dulled after two decades of tolerance is perfectly captured, as is her reintegration with happiness as the film progresses. Emma's relationship with her son, Edoardo Jr is warm enough to be one of the few truly believable paternal bonds to be staged on film and Swinton's ability to speak fluent Italian whilst gradually descending furthur into a Russian accent is subtle but remarkable.

If anything, it seems most fitting to liken I Am Love to The Godfather thematically, but without the gangsters. Despite the obvious Italian parallels there are also ideas here that are intrinsically similar such as a family business that alters the very nature of those involved and the final pressing notion that innocence cannot survive in an adult world, a notion that I Am Love pushes both figuratively and literally towards the end of its running time.Although a beautifully shot movie, I Am Love is probably most notable for the way it plays with conventions of a prosperous lifestyle. The more glamorous scenes are usually played against silence, with little focus on the opulence inherently present to make the whole affair feel a hairs inch from mundane. The more manic scenes, however, tend to introduce a glorious musical score and elegant camera motions that make the madness feel so much more accomplished than any piece of furniture or distinct cuisine dish might have.

Although I Am Love does occasionally over-flourish with its artistry the deep familial drama is enough to keep the picture level throughout its running time and the insistence to play against the rules of established upscale drama make it a phenomenal and beautiful introspective film

5/5

Can A Joke Become An Oppressive Act? Christianity in Film

2011-03-04T08:22:00.001Z

As a disclaimer, it's worth noting that I'm going to be completely honest about my impressions of religion here. I am mostly neutral when it comes to any sort of religious topic or debate but I have strong views when it comes down to particulars so if you are even remotely sensitive about the topic of religion you have been warned, I'm not holding back.

Spoiler Warning: This article contains Spoilers for the movie Se7en and references to non-spoiler themes from the movie Easy A.

I'm fairly open when it comes to religion. Different cultures fascinate me and with just about any widespread or mainstream culture the most defining influence is religion. I was the class geek in Religious Education at school, not because I was ever intent on passing with flying colours but because the ethical and existential opportunities for intelligent and provocative discussion really appealed to me. Other than media studies and perhaps English Literature it was the only subject that didn't involve hard facts, that opened up a thought and invited everybody to dissect until they had found their own preference or, for some people, their own answers.
An example of my open-nature: when I was still living with my family, some Jehova's Witnesses knocked on our door and asked if we were interested in their religion. Initially, I said no and they left at which point my sister expressed some confusion about their practices. As an atheist who is merely curious about religion, I didn't have all the answers, so I decided to take my sister down the street to meet them after they had finished at the next house. We made clear that we weren't looking to convert, but were interested in what being a Jehova's Witness is all about and made casual, interesting conversation for about a half an hour. Every few weeks they would stop by to chat, sometimes about religion, sometimes just to say "Hi" and admirably, never put us under any pressure to consider converting. I have no problem saying that they were remarkably nice people and I have no regrets about the time I spent with them.

Despite all this, I am a very cynical individual who struggles to trust any organisation that is too large. I couldn't tell you how large is too large but let's just sum it up as the Government, the corporate enterprises of Rupert Murdoch and any form of Organised Religion. Naturally, Christianity is the most portrayed religion in contemporary media and I think I need to get this article back on topic so let's dive straight in. I recently caught two films that featured, how can I put this sensitively, Chrisitan enthusiasts of an extreme nature. The first is Se7en: now, it's not much of a spoiler to point out that religion plays heavily in the plot of Se7en and if you don't know how the Seven Deadly Sins feed into Christianity, I recommend you take a gander at Wikipedia for a few minutes. Anybody who has seen Se7en will know that the killer, John Doe, is an obsessive Christian who believes that he is helping the world by making an example of sinners, kind of like a biblical Jigsaw, really. John Doe is a portrait of a man who may be labelled as insane a million times over, but his thought process and awareness of his actions make it clear that this is simply not the case. If murder is a moral imperative then the nature of Doe's crimes make him something worse than evil. He really is something of a monster. We'll come back to him soon.
Easy A makes fun of Christians in a much more light-hearted manner: they're much more in line with the traditional Jesus Freak archetype that most modern day comedies or suburban dramas will make use of, the spin here being that they're teenage Jesus Freaks looking to get rid of a girl they believe to be a harlot. There was one moment in the movie Easy A that caught my attention and that was when a group of these obsessed Christian kids began singing a song about Moses and his oppressed people. I can only assume the point behind this particular...hymn was that the film-makers wanted to suggest an irony behind the notion that these kids are actively attempting to oppress the main character and are mindlessly asinging a song drilled into them by their parents from birth. What stuck in my mind however was the irony that a film actively mocking an entire faith is giving that faith their own argument of oppression. If any Christian was to take offence at the way Easy A caricatures the Organised Religion Christianity they could cite fascism and as I'm sure we know from every religion based war of all time, there's little more dangerous than an angry religion.
Naturally, Se7en walks a similar if not much more dangerous tightrope. Although it doesn't mock religion it certainly raises the point that Doe is using his religion as an excuse for his slaying. Even more disturbing is the concept that Christianity in fact inspired him to kill which is his own argument, that God does not talk to him but nonetheless he is doing God's work.
Referring back to my mistrust of religion, the examples above pretty much encompass everything I've come to loathe about Organised Faith. I'm more than happy to acknowledge that different people believe different things to get through the day but there are certain minorities that stand out and set a bad precedent for the millions of people just getting on with their lives. The overtly vocal, who attempt to force their way of living onto people who are comfortable and well adjusted with something entirely different, whether they are street preachers, snobby elitists or those who will tell you that you're going to burn unless you convert are one of these minorities and characterised in Easy A. The benefit is that these people are at least trying to help you The other minority, is the far more terrifying prospect of an individual looking not to change your life but to end it because you're not worth the air you breathe. Clearly, killing you is not going to help you in any sense and that is not something that these people care about. I'm more than happy to accept that some atheists are just as bigoted as those who subscribe to religious beliefs but I have never heard of an atheist killing a Christian because he is a Christian.

So, if media representations of Christianity can be construed as oppression, why have we not heard more thunder about it? I think that mostly it's because both sides, media and religion, are currently in a place where each is sensible enough to just let it go. The media is diverse enough to have a God channel, and it's only free speech to crack the occasional joke about every faith, Christianity is merely the most accessible in this day and age. And Christianity is, as I have already mentioned, mostly made up of down-to-earth people who simply have different beliefs than atheists. The minorities will still come out in full force whenever they smell a hint of persecution (take for example the 'furore' over Kevin Smith's Dogma) but after a day or two of headlines, the whole thing just begins to blow over. It's an interesting position to consider but fortunately adults seem to be running both the Vatican and the film-studios and as long as they're capable of tolerating each other I doubt we have any real media war to worry about any time soon.

Originally posted on Screened.com on March 4th, 2011

Film Review: Se7en (1995)

2011-03-04T07:05:00.001Z

Se7en is set in a terrible city, one teeming with drugs, murder, corruption and spite, one in which a man stained with blood could not only walk the streets but wander into a police station and no-one would pay him a second glance because they've yet to look at him at all. The scariest thing about David Fincher's horrific thriller is not that this city is so distant from our own world, more that it is difficult to convince ourselves that this cannot be the world we live in. It most certainly could be.

Making use of any number of tropes, Se7en begins as a seemingly predictable, albeit bleak, police drama. As the young new homocide cop in town, David Mills (Brad Pitt), is assigned to work with the weary old soon-to-be retired lieutenant, William Somerset (Morgan Freeman), a series of murders begin to take place, each utilising a deadly sin in its execution. It's a very excitable premise for a procedural but as the two leads begin to realise the severity of the crimes under investigation it becomes quickly apparent that as a film, Se7en is well restrained and paradoxical all at once.
Consider the handling of the first murder, for instance: an obese corpse is found in a pitch black apartment tied to a chair, swimming in his own excrement face down in a bowl of spaghetti sauce. The scene that is set is as disgusting as that description, if not more so, but the (lack of) lighting for the scene allows for brief shots of disturbing imagery to overwhelm your mind without necessarily showing the worst aspects of the scene. In an unsettling way, this technique is tasteful and the rest of the film is very smart about finding the rope on a tightwalk between torture porn and intelligent, if grotesque, drama.

To describe any more of the murders would be to delve too far into spoilers. The thought that has gone into each of the sins practical killing methods is evident and there is no denying the twisted nature of any death in the film but between the discoveries of corpses are some great moments between the characters of the film. Mills is brash and charged but a genuinely caring individual who puts his all into his work, even if he doesn't necessarily think things through immediately, whilst Somerset is a thoughtful and at times hypocritical product of a city living in squalor. The two ponder philosophy and morality in an entirely accessible fashion but the circumstances of their discussion drives home the conundrum of the questions they ask. The film offers answers on both sides of the argument, but wisely never attempts to give a conclusive resolve.
Secondary characters add a great deal of colour to the movie that is easy to miss: R. Lee Ermey plays a police captain who in the midst of a conversation with Mills and Somerset notices a phone ringing only to pick it up and spit out "This ain't even my desk." before slamming the receiver back down, John C. McGinley appears as a SWAT team captain who commands his unit with such remarkable machismo and seems to refer to the leads only with the word "Dicks!". If there is one thing I imagine Se7en will never get enough credit for, it is its sense of humour.

Technically the film is entirely competent. The camera work is of good standard for a film of this calibre and the lighting is consistently dynamic. The most notable aspect of the film is probably it's consistently overcast dreary colour palette which helps ease in a sense of foreboding throughout the running time. There is also some really clever split-second editing in use here but it is far more engaging if you spot it for yourself.
The music is fantastic throughout the film, with the opening credits making use of a remix of the Nine Inch Nails track 'Closer', not only a punchy raw track but entirely relevant to many of the central themes on display here. The score is suitably epic and drawn out making fitting use of horns for that real noir ambience. If you're a fan of this particular genre of soundtracks it'll likely stay with you, but if you're not as appreciative the music is still entirely serviceable.

Although Se7en doesn't ask too many questions you've never heard before, it certainly puts them in a context that deepens the meaning behind them. That much, along with a competently made film would have been great but due to the mastery behind almost every element of this picture Se7en achieves more than greatness and proves to be one of the single most engaging and disturbing thrillers of all time.

5/5

Originally posted on Screened.com on March 1st, 2011

Film Review: Unbreakable (2000)

2011-03-04T07:01:00.000Z

Unbreakable is such a remarkably powerful film both as far as both production and content are concerned. The story is an ambitious one to sell and it is only after the overwhelming success of Shyamalan's first film that a studio would be willing to greenlight it. It's very slow, more so than The Sixth Sense, and although both leads are superbly underplayed that subtlety is entirely necessary to hold our attention as the plot meticulously unravels.

As Unbreakable opens, we're treated to a quiet moment just following the birth of Elijah (Samuel L. Jackson). Elijah won't stop crying and once a doctor arrives on the scene he examines the newborn to determine that all of his limbs are broken. Post opening credits we're transported approximately 40 years into the future to find David Dunn (Bruce Willis) awaking in a hospital following a train crash. Out of 130 passengers, he is the sole survivor. He doesn't possess a single injury.

The rest of the film is about these two characters finding each other and themselves. Elijah explains that he has a disorder which restricts protein production in his body and as a result his bones break and that he believes there exists a polar opposite in the world: a man who does not break. Given the circumstances it's somewhat reasonable to see why Elijah takes such an interest in David.

Although the core plot is undeniably that of a super-hero movie the focus on display is unlike any other you'll find in a multiplex. Unbreakble has distinct themes of character specific existentialism as both David and Elijah begin to discover their own places in the universe and realise what is expected of them. As with all existential movies Unbreakable is remarkably dialogue heavy and makes extensive use of drawn out conversations to relay necessary information. There are brief examples of flashbacks but they are only utilised sparsely and solely to provide information which could clutter the flow of conversation or feel awkwardly scripted otherwise.

The plot itself isn't anywhere near as 'twisty' as Shyamalan's other efforts. The most odd premise, David's surviving a train wreck whilst suffering zero damage at all, is laid out quite early in the film and for the most part the movie follows the characters progressions trying to determine a truth for the characters to live by. For maybe a half of the film the plot is on stand-still but everything shown has an impact eventually.

This is also a very dynamic film from a technical perspective as well. Certain unconventional shots, such as moving a camera in order to see through the gap between two train seats for instance, are used exceptionally well. Filming a reflection rather than the actual scene is used a few times throughout the running time and creates an feeling of distance from the characters as if you, the audience, are intruding amidst a genuine unscripted moment. On top of such genuine visual treats James Newton Howard's score is as thrilling as any conventional superhero soundtrack and gives an aura of power to scenes that need that extra punch of dynamism to really stir up the emotions that are required.

It's a wonder M. Night Shyamalan only gets recognised for his twists when he can write such great material and translate it to the screen so well. Unbreakable certainly lacks action and urgency but for a genuinely innovative take on the super-hero genre, Unbreakable has absolutely raised the bar.

5/5

Originally posted on Screened.com on March 1st, 2011

Oscar Predictions: Best Picture

2011-02-22T03:19:00.000Z

What better way to kickstart a new blog than Oscar Predictions? We've only got 5 days to go so we might as well hardsave them to the internet.

Best Picture:
This is difficult. My expectations of the past few years in this category have been entirely disproven: The Hurt Locker, Slumdog Millionaire and No Country for Old Men beat out such films as Avatar, There Will Be Blood and Michael Clayton. It hasn't been since Return of the King back in '03 that there was an obvious winner but 2010 could be the year to change that.
For what it's worth, my favourite films in this category aren't going to win. If I thought there was a chance that either Black Swan or Inception could go home with the statue, I'd bet money and do whatever I could to get the hype rolling but speaking realistically Black Swan has just a little too cat-fight and body horror and Inception is just too awesome a feat for as obnoxious a collective as the Academy to comprehend. If either of these win, expect a blog post in which I announce I've found God and am officially a devout religionist.
Toy Story 3 doesn't stand a chance mostly because it makes the Best Animated Film category entirely obsolete and although Pixar have proven time and time again that animated films can be far more effective than 90% of live action films, the common misconception suggests otherwise. Although The Fighter is supposedly a great film, I doubt that Mark Wahlberg can hold up a Best Picture winning film (I cannot say with any definition as I've yet to see The Fighter, much to my own chagrin)
I've not yet seen The Kids Are All Right, 127 Hours or Winter's Bone: I don't think that The Kids Are All Right or Winter's Bone were released widely enough for them to have an opportunity to win, although the buzz I've heard for both of those were certainly electric enough to make them viable Black Horse options. 127 Hours made its way everywhere but my understanding of the films limitations makes it an unlikely pick, in spite of the scope required to overcome any technical difficulties bought up by the need to make a compelling film that is almost entirely in one small space.
True Grit is a well-made Coen Brothers film but for what it's worth, it isn't even the best True Grit motion picture available to consumers, let alone the best film of the past year.
That brings us down to The Social Network and The King's Speech and honestly...I'm stumped. I believe whole heartedly that one of the two will win but couldn't guess which. The King's Speech is the traditional win here. After all, it's the story of a monarch overcoming tremendous personal difficulties to become the ruler needed by his people during the gravest of times.
The Social Network really couldn't be furthur; the tale of a college loser who utilises his misogynistic genius to create a website which allowed over-priveleged students to keep in contact and the subsequent lawsuits and expansions that followed. Through content, delivery and tone each film differs immeasurably but both were critically treasured and commercially viable. If you want an argument for the diversity of acknowledged classic motion pictures, 2010 certainly broke the mould and delivered these two. For what it's worth, I don't especially like The Social Network personally but there is no denying the tour-de-force that it has become as it radically shifted in public opinion from 'The Facebook Movie' to the frontrunner for a Best Picture win and I can't help but appreciate The King's Speech for its ascent to similar ranks as if from nowhere right on The Social Network's coattails.
As much as it's one of my least favourite films on this list (and easily the most over-rated film of the year) I can see The Social Network taking it this year. It's fresh and energetic and it fits this new style that the Academy is going for with the 10 nominations for Best Picture. There's also little doubt in my mind that a clean sweep for The Social Network will also result in higher ratings for next years show as more people begin to identify with The Oscars after god knows how many years of the same bland cycle that we've seen for far too long. I'd honestly be surprised if every voter didn't get an informative pack urging them to vote for The Social Network.

Any thoughts about which film will win Best Picture this year? Go ahead and let us know in the comments section below.