Huddersfield Examiner - Hollywood in Huddersfield

Attack The Block - A Review

2011-05-12T08:25:31Z

Attack The Block, starring Huddersfield's own Jodie Whitttaker, is the debut feature of Joe Cornish of Adam & Joe fame. Alongside Whittaker, it stars Nick Frost, John Boyega and Luke Treadaway and is produced by Nira Park and James Wilson of Shaun of the Dead-producing fame. Based on these few nuggets of information, you should know what to expect; smart, funny comedy with a hybrid twist and a reverence to its genre with plenty of pop culture references that refuses to pull any punches. Is that what I thought of it? Check out the trailer and I'll let you know...

]]> The tale of Attack The Block is very simple; there is an alien invasion centred around the titular block in London's East End. A group of wannabe gangsta kids have to band together with middle-class dope-smoker Brewis, his dealer Ron and Jodie Whittaker's Sam, a nurse who is new to the block, in an attempt to defeat the alien interlopers. Some of the best comedy comes from Brewis; high throughout the film and clearly out of place among the inhabitants of the block, he tries everything to ingratiate himself but his efforts are consistently hideously embarrassing and cringe-worthy, something that has become a staple of British comedy since The Office way back in 2001.

Reportedly, Joe Cornish did a lot of research into the speech patterns of young Londoners in order to get the most accurate portrayal of these characters as possible, however some of the dialogue does come across like it was written by a 40-year-old who is trying to make it sound authentic. This is not Cornish's fault; this kind of dialogue will always sound stilted due to its nature; for those unfamiliar with this dialect, like myself, it sounds like a stereotypical representation of urban youth, and for those who speak it it will sound like the writer is trying too hard to come across as convincing. It is a sad pitfall of trying to write this kind of film.

However, this problem is one of very few with Attack The Block and is outweighed by the many positives that Cornish has managed to cram the film with. The decision to keep the monsters somewhat hidden is always a smart one to take; what we can't see, we can't understand and a lack of understanding and knowledge is key to fear, and these monsters really work in that regard. Much like Shaun of the Dead, Attack The Block is able to switch from fairly broad comedy to genuinely scary scenes in the blink of an eye, and at 88 minutes it is all played at such a breakneck pace that we are never given a chance to catch our breath.

Ultimately, Attack The Block is an example of the great film-making that Britain can produce and is yet another triumph to be added to the legacy of the now-defunct UK Film Council. It was announced in early April that Attack The Block will get US distribution, now we wait to see if it can garner the success of its spiritual predecessors Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz.

If you are a fan of these movies, of alien invasion movies, of horror movies, or of British movies, this is a must-see movie.

****

Scream 4 - A Review

2011-05-01T22:25:59Z

I know - it's official title is Scre4m, but that is a stupid non-word. On a par with Se7en for ridiculously titled films. Anyway, this is the fourth installment of Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson's postmodern slasher franchise, and the first since 2001 when the series apparently signed off on a pretty disappointing note. Ten years and a slew of horror rehashes later, Scream is back to take on torture porn and remakes. How exciting.

]]> It feels somewhat oxymoronic to describe the fourth film in a series as "refreshing", but that's exactly how Scream 4 feels. It's nice, after a decade of elaborate torture methods and booby-traps, to just watch a hooded, masked figure slice someone up. Very nice.

The plot of Scream 4 isn't anything out of the box; Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) returns to Woodsboro after a decade away to promote her new book. On the night of her return, two high school kids are murdered. By a new Ghostface. Scary stuff. David Arquette and Courteney Cox-Arquette also return as now-Sheriff Dewey Riley and celebrity journalist Gale Weathers-Riley attempting to catch the killer. New to the franchise are Emma Roberts as Sidney's cousin Jill, Hayden Panettiere and Rory Culkin as horror nerds Kirby and Charlie, and Marley Shelton as Deputy Hicks, among many others. There are a lot of people in this film.

After an opening sequence that is almost too clever for its own good, the film settles into a familiar pattern of stalking and slashing, with the franchise's trademark punches of black humour, irony and ten-a-penny pop culture references. It's quite a challenge to pick out good quotes that don't have unsuitable language, but two of my favourites manage to fit this criteria; Ghostface telling Sidney "I've got plans for you, I'm gonna slice your eyelids open so you don't blink when I stab you in the face" and ex-boyfriend Trevor's exclamation "What are you doing in a house with Sidney Prescott? That's like being on Top Chef with Jeffrey Dahmer." It's good stuff.

The problem with a film like Scream 4, which identifies itself by its own reflexivity is that the viewer is always left slightly in the dark regarding the intentions of certain scenes - is a particular scene predictable and familiar because it's supposed to be that way, or is it just a bit lazy? The 16-year-old horror nerd in me says that Williamson and Craven are far too smart to let these things slip by, but the 22-year-old man of the world that I am thinks that maybe Scream 4 isn't quite as clever as it thinks it is. But does it just want me to think that? My personal problem with irony and postmodernism is that anything can be explained away by the film being smarter and more aware than I am. Which cannot be true.

The thing with Scream 4 is that if you like Screams one to three, you'll probably like it, and if you don't like them then you won't being going to see this one anyway. That's just how it works. I liked it, but then I would. Because I like to be mindlessly entertained by absurd horror movies, and I also like to have my ego stroked by being handed the odd easy reference to 'get'. It makes me feel special. Speaking of feeling special, the reasoning that the killer(s) use(s) to justify their actions is, while slightly ridiculous, the least idiotic since Scream the first.

Tremendously enjoyable, if you like this sort of thing. If you don't like it, why are you reading this review? Why are you even worried about Scream 4? Thanks for reading though, it's nice of you.

****

Scream 4 - A Review

2011-05-01T22:25:59Z

Tremendously enjoyable, if you like this sort of thing. If you don't like it, why are you reading this review? Why are you even worried about Scream 4? Thanks for reading though, it's nice of you.

****

Top 5 Movie Journalists

2011-04-03T11:33:50Z

I tend to enjoy journalism movies. Mainly because when I think of "journalism" movies, I think of conspiracy thrillers in which an everyman journalist comes up against some sort of faceless evil with a name like "MegaCorp" or "Sinestro Inc". The thing is, some of my favourite movie journalists don't come from these sorts of movies so I've decided to go for the journalists themselves rather than the film. Here are my top 5 movie journalists...

]]> 5. John Grogan - Marley & Me

Yeah, that's right, I like Marley & Me. And I like Owen Wilson. Although it has to be said that Owen Wilson is a bizarre comedic actor. He's probably made me laugh out loud maybe three times in his career, but at the same time he has never made me want to solder my eyelids together to escape the pain. Anyway, in Marley & Me he plays a pretty sympathetic reporter-cum-columnist who reluctantly gets a dog to please his wife, and ends up liking the dog after all. Awww. It's all very sweet. The likability is amplified by the fact that his boss is the always-awesome Alan Arkin, and his wife is the constantly irritating Jennifer Aniston - who, by the way, he deals with like an absolute saint. It's not a film about journalism, but journalism does play quite a large part in what goes on. And it's lovely.

4. Cal McAffrey - State of Play

Weird thing about Cal McAffrey: if it wasn't for one particular scene in State of Play, I would hate Cal. He's exactly the kind of archetypal honest-but-with-his-own-code-of-ethics idiot I don't like in movies. We know he's not your average Washington Post journalist because the opening shot is of him in a beat-up old car filled with junk food wrappers, listening to some God-awful Irish punk. Later he is the only white man in a greasy diner in a black neighbourhood where he is clearly chummy with the proprietor because of a conversation that might as well have gone like this; "Yo dawg!" "Sup homes?" et cetera. Oh, and he has stubble, a mane that wouldn't look out of place on a pantomime lion and wears mismatched suits. He is also gruff with his superiors and underlings, but with a knowing look that means "I'm just joking, I'm a lovable rogue!" Anyway, the scene that I like him for involves him knocking on a door that he really shouldn't be knocking on. Suddenly his devil-may-care attitude and casual questioning becomes trying not to fill his trousers as he runs away like a little girl. It makes him human.

3. Tim Messenger - Hot Fuzz

Adam Buxton's misspelling Sandford Citizen editor is a joy to behold really. What's not to like? He has inside information that he tried to share with the police before meeting a grisly demise AND that grisly demise comes in one of the best homages to The Omen that anyone has ever seen. Also, his greeting of choice is the ridiculously upbeat "hi hi". There isn't a lot to say about him, but he's bloody great.

2. Woodward and Bernstein - All The President's Men

This wouldn't be a real list without including Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the exposers of the Watergate bugging scandal way back in 1972. Played by Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman, two of the most likable screen actors, they caper about Washington uncovering fresh evidence with the help of their informant Deep Throat and destroy the presidency of Richard Nixon. All without the internet. They just don't make journalists like they used to.

1. "Photojournalist" - Apocalypse Now

Apparently Dennis Hopper's drug-addled photojournalists doesn't have a name, but it doesn't stop him from the being the greatest movie journalist of all time. Ever. He doesn't really do anything to further the plot, but he does spout some wonderful nonsense, including my favourite line from the movie; "The heads. You're looking at the heads. Sometimes he goes too far. He's the first one to admit it."

So those are my favourite movie journalists. I'm kinda hoping that this list goes down in history as the first Top 5 to include both Marley & Me and Apocalypse Now. Unless there is a Top 5 Horrific Animal Deaths list, in which case I've been beaten to it.

BIFF Day 6 - Killing Kasztner and Cave of Forgotten Dreams - A Pair of Reviews

2011-03-25T00:49:02Z

Apologies for how long this has taken to do - it's been over 48 hours since I saw these, but hopefully I've used the time well to fully absorb what I saw. Or not, we'll see. Check out the trailers, and then what I thought:

]]> I've never reviewed a documentary before, and I've never really tried to review two films side-by-side, so this is an experiment that is coming at a point where I am stressed and tired, so bear with me, please.

Killing Kasztner is directed by Gaylen Ross, star of Dawn of the Dead - part of the feature's appeal to me, I'll admit - and deals with the legacy of Dr. Rezso Kasztner, a Hungarian Jew who negotiated with the Nazis to spare the lives of over 1600 fellow Hungarian Jews in 1944. Having long been fascinated with any sort of extreme belief system, this pulled me in with relative ease. Until I saw the running time. I'm a firm believer that documentaries work best in the 45-90 minute range, and this is way outside of that at a hefty 120 minutes. "Fair enough", I thought, "maybe there's a lot of stuff to cover." And perhaps there is, but Ross certainly didn't cover it.

What we have is clearly an agenda-based film, focusing on the mundane details of the Kasztner family who have to deal with the lack of recognition from the Israeli people for their ancestor's efforts. Ross says outright in her narration, and I'm paraphrasing, "Kasztner should be a hero. Why isn't he a hero? He should be a hero." This, coupled with ominous 'bad guy' music every time Kasztner's murderer Ze'ev Eckstein is on screen, leads to an incredibly partisan documentary that doesn't so much tell a story as shout at you until you bow in submission and say "Sure, Gaylen, whatever you say."

Don't get me wrong, I understand her point. Kasztner saved lives, but she ultimately brushes over the issues of whether or not Kasztner's negotiations included the sacrificing of up to 500,000 other Hungarian Jews to save the 1600 on the 'Kasztner train', which comprised largely of friends and family, and refuses to paint Eckstein in any light other than a cold-blooded killer, despite his continual hints that there is another side to the story. Of course killing is wrong, but let the man speak, please.

On the other hand, Cave of Forgotten Dreams is a wondrous example of what documentaries can do. Werner Herzog has taken his time in finely crafting his technique as a documentarian, and it really comes to a head here. It's an examination of the Chauvet cave in the Ardeche region. Discovered in 1994, it is host to the oldest (by far) cave paintings known to man, some dating back 32,000 years. The most incredible moment is when Herzog reveals that the charcoal scrapings on the ceiling of the cave were made by a torch 28,000 years earlier. They genuinely look like they could have been made yesterday.

His narration punctuates the jaw-dropping visuals at choice moments, and his selection in subjects to interview is impeccable. In a candid Q&A after the screening, the great man told of how he met with a renowned perfumer who turned out to be "boring", so instead he went with Maurice Maurin, who spends most of his time sniffing rocks. Equally entertaining is the Gepetto look-a-like who revels in chucking ancient spears about, raving about how he could "kill a horse". It's a joy.

The difference between the two is really the presence of the author. Although Herzog is there, both in person and voice, he never imposes himself upon the film, whereas Gaylen Ross is continually in shots, providing judgmental commentary and dragging the film around with her. It's not terrible, it just suffers from what can only be described as amateurish production.

The real joy of Forgotten Dreams is the 3D element. Although it left a lasting impression in the form of a headache, it also truly brought the images to life. It's a horrible cliche, but it made it all seem much more real; I'm quite sure that the film's effect would be severely diminished without the third dimension.

I'm struggling to know what to write, but I will conclude with this: if you want to know about Dr. Rezso Kasztner and the legal cases he was involved with in Israel in the 1950s, do your own research, allow your own thoughts to accompany you, because Gaylen Ross certainly won't. As for Forgotten Dreams; see it in 3D. Make sure of it.

Killing Kasztner: **
Cave of Forgotten Dreams: *****

BIFF Day 3: A Night For Dying Tigers - A Review

2011-03-19T11:46:41Z

Last night I ventured back to Bradford, alone this time, to see A Night For Dying Tigers, the new feature by director/producer/writer/cinematographer/editor Terry Miles. Preceding it was an odd short called Just Before Dawn, which I couldn't quite get on board with, but certainly didn't mind it.

So, check out the trailer for Dying Tigers and then I'll tell you what I thought.

]]> Now, my plans for the festival are to avoid knowing things about the films I'm going to see, wherever possible, so I hadn't seen the trailer. If I had, I would probably have been more excited about seeing Dying Tigers. As it was, I thought it sounded like a fairly annoying, pretentious mess with a stupid name. Not so.

This is one of those films where the characters mention things that have happened, but don't explain exactly what's going on, then, ten minutes later, perhaps we're fed another little spoonful of information. What this does to great effect in Dying Tigers is mess with your perceptions of characters. Jack (Gil Bellows), for example, starts off as an adulterous criminal, but by the end of the film he is one of the more sympathetic characters. Patrick (Tygh Runyan) and Karen (Lauren Lee Smith) begin as the free-spirited sympathetic ones, but quickly take two very different paths to being unlikeable narcissists.

Where the film falls down slightly is in some of naive dialogue. One particularly painful sequence comes towards the conclusion of the film, and reveals the logic behind the film's title, but it's trite, cliched, and little embarrassing. Elsewhere, the film lacks the harsh humour that the sets the likes of Rachel Getting Married apart from Dying Tigers in the family-falling-apart genre; it always feels like a serious film that someone has sat down and written to be serious, whereas Rachel Getting Married does, at times, feel like a real situation.

I liked Dying Tigers, quite a lot. It's no masterpiece, but it has some very good ideas; I like the drip-feeding of information, I like the fact that you're not quite sure who everyone is for quite a while, and I like the performances, especially that of Jennifer Beals, who is fantastic, without giving anything about her character away.

****

BIFF Day 1 and You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger - A (Not Quite) Review

2011-03-17T10:30:45Z

The 17th annual Bradford International Film Festival kicked off in style last night with plenty of free alcohol and a screening of Woody Allen's You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger.

What was an enjoyable evening was slightly spoiled by a pretty atrocious film, but I'll get to that later. First, have a look at the trailer:

]]> I'll be honest, I walked out of Tall Dark Stranger after about 45 minutes. The tipping point? Josh Brolin telling Freida Pinto, who he has literally just met, "I watched you undress the other night from out of my window. It was very erotic." Freida Pinto's response? "That's very flattering." No disgust, no outrage and no shouting. I left.

I understand that films come with an unwritten rule that you have to suspend your disbelief, but I think there are degrees. When I watched Inception, for example, I was happy to allow Leo and co to infiltrate Cillian Murphy's dreamscape, because it stuck the rules of Inception's world. Tall Dark Stranger's world is the real world, specifically London; a world where the common response to finding out that your neighbour is spying on you is not letting him take you out for dinner and letching over you. By the way, is it "letching" or "leching"? Never sure of that.

This wasn't the only thing I didn't like about the film; the opening shot was of a black cab. Nice one Woody - why not just set the whole thing outside Buckingham Palace and shoot it from within a phone box, punctuating each scene with Big Ben chiming out and someone shouting "Cor blimey, guv'nor!"?

And last but not least, the story was dull and too contrived for me to care. Gemma Jones and Anthony Hopkins are getting divorced. Gemma Jones has tried to kill herself, as well as visiting a fortune-teller and constantly whining to her daughter, Naomi Watts, and her husband Josh Brolin. Josh doesn't care, because he has found a new hobby in spying on new neighbour Freida Pinto, who is quite flattered by his disturbing activities. Meanwhile, Anthony Hopkins has got engaged to actress/hooker Lucy Punch, who is incredibly irritating and clearly a gold-digger, but of course Anthony Hopkins doesn't see this, because this movie operates outside the realms of normal human behaviour. Also, Naomi Watts is starting to fall in love with her boss Antonio Banderas. Also, I don't care. Throw in some horrible mother-and-son-in-law-not-getting-along jokes and it was enough to make me leave.

As I didn't sit through it all, I don't feel I can really give this a "star" rating, so I will give it a verbal one: Don't waste your time. And, if you're a Woody Allen fan: Really, really don't waste your time.

As for the opening night gala of the festival itself, it was a very enjoyable affair. Plenty of free wine and beer, as well as soft drinks and canapes, more than made up for the utter despair of watching Tall Dark Stranger. Not only this, but I met some very interesting people, including a man from Turkey who was obsessed with his own disappointment in deciding to get a train to the even from Harrogate rather than driving; Kathryn Penny, a judge on the Shine Short Film Award panel; and two pretty drunk film lecturers from (I think) Bradford University, with whom we discussed various film issues from coprophilia to Michelangelo Antonioni, and many things in between. I say "we" as I was attending with Chair of the Shine Short Film Award panel Paul Navarro and fellow student Craig Shaw.

All in all, it was a successful opening to what should be a fantastic two weeks of film. Festival Director Tony Earnshaw has, once again, managed to co-ordinate a fascinating looking programme that covers a broad spectrum of film, and I look forward to exploring it.

Bradford International Film Festival

2011-03-16T12:59:03Z

Today marks the start of the 17th annual Bradford International Film Festival, centred at the National Media Museum. I'll be heading over there later on for the opening night gala and a screening of Woody Allen's new movie, the London-based You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger.

I'll be blogging after each day that I'm there - unfortunately this won't be every day due to the huge amounts of university work I have to do before the end of this month - and I'll also aim to be tweeting from the festival - follow me, @GeneralRock, and look for any #biff2011 hashtags that pop up. I might even record the odd short audio podcast to put up on here for your aural delight.

Check back here later today for a review of You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger, and over the next eleven days I'll do my best to bring you awesome coverage of what's happening. Or, head over there yourself to see some of the many features, premieres, shorts, documentaries, Q&As, and everything else from the festival.

BIFF_A4_Catalogue.pdf

Paul - A Review

2011-03-02T23:27:17Z

Tonight, I saw Paul, the first feature co-written by Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz stars Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. Yes, it came out two weeks ago and yes, I made up my mind before it came out that I didn't care about it, but I went to see it anyway. Why? Because sitting in the dark with my friends and not talking is about as sociable as I get and it had been a while. Anyway, check out the trailer and read my review. You know it's good for you. Now open wide.

]]> The main thing I had heard about Paul was that it had been "toned down". This, I don't understand. It has, Shaun and Fuzz been given an "R" rating by the MPAA and an "18" by the BBFC, and neither of those films did badly at the box office, taking six and five times their production budgets respectively. Paul won't be released stateside for another couple of weeks, so it's tough to compare but really, the people who saw Shaun and Fuzz will go to see this too.

And why shouldn't they? It's bloody good you know. Even if it has been "toned down" a bit. You won't find any "c-words" here - a shame because the best joke in Hot Fuzz was the "c-word" related swear box gag - and you certainly won't find the buckets of gore that splattered themselves around the previous films. However, what you will find is a pretty funny, warm film. Exactly what we expect from Pegg and Frost. And even director Greg Mottola, who previously exercised his bromantic muscles on 2007's excellent comedy Superbad.

Once again, a fair share of the gags on offer are references to the apparently nerdy genre fare that Pegg and Frost delight in. References to Aliens, Indiana Jones, Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Star Wars are all over the shop, but they never get in the way of the story, they just add to the effect for those in the know - and I have to admit that I missed a blindingly obvious Star Wars reference, later pointed out to me by the wonderful Matt Waring. To re-appropriate a phrase, you don't have to be a geek to enjoy Paul, but it helps.

So what of the story? It's fairly basic; two nerdy nerds come across a fugitive alien and promise to help him get home, encountering the likes of Creationist Ruth (Kristen Wiig) and her nutjob father (an unrecognisable John Carroll Lynch) along the way. Cue bromance, romance and shenanigans, as well as a ton of great cameos that I don't want to spoil here.

The film isn't flawless, but it's certainly very good and puts forward an early case for comedy of the year. The pacing is spot on - at 104 minutes it never drags - and the gags never miss their target. Jason Bateman, Bill Hader, Joe Lo Truglio, Jane Lynch, Blythe Tanner, Jeffrey Tambor, Jesse Plemons and David Koechner provide one of the best comedic supporting casts you're ever likely to see - a long list, yes, but they all deserve a mention - and keeping Seth Rogen to a strictly voice-only role means that he doesn't have to gurn mercilessly throughout. Brilliant.

It's hard to judge a comedy film. I wouldn't change anything about it, aside from the odd tweak here and there, but then I can't give it five stars because I'd give Apocalypse Now five stars, and it obviously isn't that good. But, as far as comedy goes, you'll be hard-pushed to find something more unashamedly enjoyable, particularly if you fall into the nerd demographic that Pegg, Frost and Mottola are aiming both barrels at.

****

The 83rd Academy Awards - Highs and Lows

2011-02-28T20:40:35Z

The Oscars happened last night. James Franco and Anne Hathaway hosted the 3-and-a-half hour extravaganza of self-congratulation, and it was great. There have been a lot of people complaining that it was no good and that the hosts weren't entertaining enough, but I thought they did a great job. The King's Speech was the big winner of the night, but rather than blather monotonously through the events I'm going to pick 5 high points and 5 low points to talk about.

]]> I'll go for the low points first so I can end on a high, because everyone loves a happy ending. So, low point number one...

There was an odd video theme going on throughout the ceremony with parts of old movies and whatnot being shown, which was fine for the most part. However, there was a really weird moment early on. As Tom Hanks was introduced to present a couple of technical awards, we were shown a brief clip from Gone With The Wind before the theme from Titanic was played and we saw the huge vessel loom behind Mr Hanks for a few seconds. Very odd. The whole Tom Hanks bit was a bit weird though.

Number two was the dreadful performance of Tangled's "I See the Light" by the film's stars Zachary Levi and Mandy Moore. How this atrocity was nominated for an award I don't know, but it's a good job it didn't win. A turgid, steaming mess.

Low point number three is the fact that we can now refer to Joe Johnston's The Wolfman an Oscar winner. Granted, it was for Make-up Design and it went to the genius that is Rick Baker, but that The Wolfman won more Oscars than The Kids Are All Right is just plain wrong. Wrong, I tell you.

Number four... This is a tie between Melissa Leo's weird, weird acceptance speech about the Academy and money and craft and something else. Weird. The other is when the Matt Damon-narrated Inside Job took Best Documentary Feature won. Not just that in itself, that's fine. The producers got up and said something about "This is because of the economy, which got broken because of massive fraud, et cetera" and everyone applauded and whooped. I don't like it when rich people get all righteous about money and people mis-using money. I just don't like it.

My fifth and lowest of low points was the ridiculous snubbing of The Social Network in the big categories. Really, what does David Fincher have to do to get some Academy recognition? At the moment it took Best Editing it became clear that the three awards it had taken were either momentum or consolation. They were consolation. It deserved its awards for Best Editing, Best Score and Best Adapted Screenplay, but it deserved even more than that. A real shame that Fincher just cannot get rewarded for his fine work and continual standard-raising efforts.

So that's the bad stuff over with, what about the good stuff?

Number one, the acceptance speeches for a lot of the smaller categories. 73-year-old David Seidler opened his speech with "My mother always said I'd be a late bloomer", before referencing Melissa Leo's "f-bomb" in her Best Supporting Actress acceptance speech. In fact, that provided a lot of material. Beardy Christian Bale used it in his speech, saying "I'm not going to drop an f-bomb like Melissa, I've done that enough in the past", referencing his rant on the set of Terminator: Salvation in a rare of example of self-awareness and humility. It was great. Oh, and Randy Newman, Luke Matheny and Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall all gave great speeches.

For number two I'm going to go with everything that Anne Hathaway and James Franco did. I loved them. Anne Hathaway was doing her ditzy thing, Franco did his laidback thing - cuing many Tweets suggesting that he was stoned - to great effect. Particular highlights were Franco in drag, a Toy Story 3/lesbians joke that literally nobody could have seen coming and a great intro video where they travelled through previous host Alec Baldwin's dreams, Inception-style to find they key to excellent Oscar-hosting, with voiceover from Morgan Freeman. Fantastic.

Number three is Kirk Douglas presenting the award for Best Supporting Actress. At 95, he was in fine form, mock-berating Hugh Jackman ("Why are you laughing? You Australians laugh at everything. Colin Firth isn't laughing, he's British") and hitting on, and making blush, Anne Hathaway. Awesome.

The fourth was another surprise guest, former host Billy Crystal showing up and bringing the funny. I was slightly confused when he introduced a hologram of Bob Hope, but it was still pretty good.

Finally, my last peak was Trent Reznor winning an Academy Award. Who would ever have thought that would happen? Completely deserved though.

So that was the Oscars. I'm still angry that The Social Network and Inception were ignored so blatantly. I will see you next year.

The 83rd Academy Awards - Tonight

2011-02-27T20:07:43Z

So the Oscars will happen tonight, hosted by James Franco and Anne Hathaway. As of today I have seen all ten of the Best Picture nominees, so I finally feel qualified to comment on what may or may not happen later on.

]]> I'm going to focus mainly on the ten Best Picture nominees, because they generally dominates the rest of the categories as well, and as I said, I've seen them all now.

First up is The King's Speech, which has been nominated for a massive 12 awards. It's already taken top prize at the BAFTAs, and is hotly tipped as one of the possible two big winners of this year, along side The Social Network. I've made no secret of my love for David Fincher and his latest offering, and I still believe that The Social Network is the right choice to take home the gold. The Social Network absolutely captures the zeitgeist of these times whereas The King's Speech is rooted in the past; The Social Network is devastatingly stylish, as opposed to the safe style that Tom Hooper adopts for The King's Speech; and, best of all, The Social Network is not the sentimental Oscar-bait that The King's Speech most definitely is.

That's not to say that The King's Speech isn't a great movie. Of course it is. But it does feel like shameless Academy-courting. Colin Firth is fantastic as Bertie, the eponymous King, portraying a stammerer with both dignity and pathos, and the supporting cast of Helena Bonham Carter and Geoffrey Rush is excellent. The story is engaging too; who doesn't love a good underdog tale?

For me though, it just doesn't hold the weight necessary for an Oscar winner. I haven't felt any lasting impression from it. Unlike I have from The Social Network, which I couldn't wait to see again after I'd seen it in the cinema. A trip to see Wall Street; Money Never Sleeps turned into a rewatch of The Social Network, and the wait for the Blu-Ray release was unbearable. I had to see it again. And when I did see it again, it was even better than before. I have no massive desire to see The King's Speech again, but if someone came in and put The Social Network on right now, I would turn my laptop off and not move for two hours. It is that good.

Which brings me on to the third contender, Inception. Chris Nolan's massively successful sci-fi thriller. And that is the problem. "Sci-fi". Generally speaking, genre films don't win big at the Oscars. Only three have taken home the Best Picture award in the last 20 years, and none of those were science fiction. As thrilling and technically proficient as Inception is, I don't think the producers can seriously expect to win with it. It's a shame, as it is a genuinely fantastic movie, but that's just how it works. I think True Grit and Black Swan have the same problem. As throwbacks to the western and giallo genres respectively, they don't have any real chance here. Again, I loved both; Black Swan is easily my favourite movie to be released in 2011, and is probably my second favourite of the ten nominees, but I'll say it again: Genre films don't win.

And then we come on to what I would call token nods to minorities. The Fighter (working class/underdog), The Kid's are All Right (lesbian-headed family), Toy Story 3 (animation) and Winter's Bone (independent). I enjoyed each of these to varying degrees, but I don't feel that any of them can win. None are rounded enough as movies, despite each having their own (substantial) strengths.

The Fighter is painfully one-dimensional in places and comes to an extremely Hollywood-ised climax. Yes, it's a true story, but it could have been done in a more interesting way.

The Kids Are All Right is far too linear for its own good. It has many good ideas, and the performances from Julianne Moore, Annette Bening and Mark Ruffalo are flawless, but it refuses to do anything interesting. A shame.

Toy Story 3 is probably the most complete of these films, but as an animation, it won't win. It's guaranteed the award for Best Animated Feature, but I feel that it'll be a long time before the Academy goes anywhere near an animated film for its Best Picture.

Winter's Bone is another great movie, but it is just in there as filler. It looks good for an independent movie to be up for the top prize, but that's really all that it is in there for.

The final film nominated is Danny Boyle's 127 Hours. For a while I thought this might be a dark horse, but it has become clear that it's very much a two-horse race this year. What elevates this is James Franco's incredible performance as Aron Ralston. For one actor to be able to hold the screen for 90 minutes is quite a feat, but then James Franco is an outstanding actor in pretty much everything he does. He should run Colin Firth very close for Best Actor, but I think this is just Firth's year. At 32, Franco has a lot of time on his side and will certainly be rewarded for his efforts one day.

The big surprise in the nominations is the snubbing of Chris Nolan as Best Director, for Inception. As Mark Kermode has said many times, Inception is by far the most directed film of the year. By that, I mean that the technical and creative ability necessary to create this film are much higher than for the likes of The Fighter, for which David O. Russell has been nominated. In this category I would like to see David Fincher win, if just for the incredible Henley Regatte scene halfway through The Social Network.

As for predictions, these are mine for the major categories:

Best Picture - it will be between The Social Network and The King's Speech. My head is torn, so I'll follow my heart and say The Social Network.

Best Director - it should really be Chris Nolan, but seeing as he is already out of the running, I'll go for David Fincher. He made the best film of the year, and deserves some Academy recognition.

Best Actor - I can't see anyone but Colin Firth for this. He lost out to Jeff Bridges last year, and I think this is his time.

Best Actress - like Best Actor, I think this probably a foregone conclusion. Natalie Portman for Black Swan. Sublime.

Supporting Actor - I would like this to go to Mark Ruffalo. I find him infinitely watchable, but I think it will belong to Christian Bale, for his show stealing performance as Dicky Eklund in The Fighter.

Supporting Actress - I have a sneaky suspicion that Hailee Steinfeld will win this. Why else would they nominate a lead actress in the supporting category?

Adapted Screenplay - This is headed straight for Aaron Sorkin for The Social Network. Long-heralded as one of the best screenwriters around, I think that this is definitely his time.

Original Screenplay - I think Inception will win this, just because it has to win a non-technical award somewhere, and this is its best chance. Having said that, The King's Speech is going to have to win something too..... Inception (Chris Nolan).

So there you go. I'll be back tomorrow to say what actually happened.

Oscar Nominations and Black Swan

2011-01-26T14:32:00Z

This is my second video entry here, and I'm talking about the Oscar nominations, announced yesterday, and Darren Aronofsky's Black Swan. I reviewed Black Swan on Sunday, so I tried to keep it brief. Unfortunately I'm having some issues embedding it here, so click the link and watch away!

Black Swan - A Review

2011-01-23T13:22:02Z

Darren Aronofsky has returned with what he calls a companion piece to his 2008 Academy Award winner The Wrestler. Instead of Mickey Rourke, Black Swan stars Natalie Portman as a fragile, somewhat virginal ballet dancer pressured and judged by her embittered mother. When she is chosen as the lead in a new production of Swan Lake, all her dreams come true, but soon her life and sanity begin to unravel. Check out the trailer:

]]> Black Swan is, first and foremost, nuts. It revels in its eccentricity and delights in exclaiming its insanity to all that will listen. A good starting point for any movie. Natalie Portman is in career-best form as Nina, the troubled young dancer who cannot take control of her life from a mother who takes every opportunity to remind her daughter that she gave up a career in the industry to raise her.

When "brilliant" director Thomas chooses Nina as the Swan Queen, Nina becomes obsessed with perfection. As she focuses more and more on becoming the perfect Swan Queen, she starts losing sight of reality. Mila Kunis' doesn't help matters as the charismatic, rebellious Lily, Nina's toughest competition for the role.

What transpires as we go further into the piece is almost impossible to put into words. Hallucinations, metamorphosis and violence all come into play as Nina wrestles with her inner Black Swan. The key here is that she doesn't seem to know that he is losing her mind. It all adds to the naivety of her character, and even in the final throes of her performance as she prepares to go on stage, her resolution is not one of conscious thought but of pure instinct and desire.

The film stands out because of Vincent Cassel as the Machievellian Thomas, Portman's exceptional performance - very deserving of her Golden Globe - and Clint Mansell's devastating score. It is reminiscent of Hans Zimmer's Shutter Island score in its volume and intensity; it rarely lets up and assists the film in building to an almost unbearable crescendo of noise and emotion.

Where the film falls down slightly is in its dogged use of "shaky-cam". Aronofsky used it to great effect in The Wrestler, but in this most pristine of environments it feels out of place and forced.

Black Swan is possibly the hardest film I've ever tried to write about. Revealing plot points is dangerous and trying to explain what actually occurs in the film is futile, so I will leave with this: Black Swan is the first masterpiece of 2011. It will leave you with a feeling of ecstasy and euphoria, before the questions start to filter through into your mind. As a Lynchian examination of self it is exquisite, and as a piece of entertainment it is equally fascinating. Highly recommended.

*****

My first video entry - Golden Globe round-up

2011-01-18T21:48:16Z

I'm trying something new here, with this video diary thing. I hope it works. There are a few sync issues here that I will try to iron out for next time. I'm aiming to make this weekly if possible, so there should be more to come.

Also, from now on I will keep the length down to 15 minutes to allow me to put these on YouTube as one file. This one is about 22 minutes, hence it being in two parts.

My Top 5 Robert DeNiro Movies

2011-01-18T20:48:06Z

Robert DeNiro was awarded the Cecil B. DeMille Lifetime Achievement Award at Sunday night's Golden Globe ceremony, and it got me thinking about the great man's work. So, in his honour, these are my favourite Robert DeNiro movies and/or performances. I apologise in advance for the lack of pictures, but I'm having technical difficulties at this time...

]]> 5. GoodFellas

Perhaps the first movie that springs to mind when I think of DeNiro. His performance as Jimmy Conway is nothing short of legendary as he propels the film into an all new stratosphere of awesomeness.

4. The Deer Hunter

As Michael, we see a calmer side of DeNiro's legend as he tried to come to terms with the harrowing experience of the Viet Nam War. Michael Cimino's classic was the perfect vehicle for DeNiro to show yet another side of himself in his early career.

3. Taxi Driver

Travis Bickle may be one of the most extreme characters that DeNiro has portrayed. Playing another Viet Nam vet, and a screwed up one at that, DeNiro is once again excellent. His interactions with a young Jodie Foster are a particular highlight.

The Godfather Part II

Coppola's sequel may be even better than the first part, and it's down, in no small part, to the incredible performance of DeNiro as the young Vito Corleone. Vitriolic and dangerous, it's hard to believe that DeNiro was only 30 when this was released.

1. Raging Bull

The real-life Jake LaMotta may have been the perfect character for DeNiro to play. Early roles in the likes of Mean Streets prepared him for this performance as the spontaneous, violent boxer who struggles to deal with his problems without resorting to his in-ring methods.