Reelism

A Late Quartet - Review

2013-04-01T12:01:00.000+01:00

'Acclaimed' doesn't quite do the cast of A Late Quartet justice. Philip Seymour Hoffman, Christopher Walken, Catherine Keener, and Mark Ivanir form the core here, and all turn in remarkable performances as an aging string quartet struggling to continue to work together.

The plot might seem clichéd at times (they must play one last show!) and the drama descended into soap opera once or twice, but by and large the cast transcend the material, finding weight in even the weakest moments of the script.

Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of the film has nothing to do with the able cast, however. A Late Quartet is obsessed with music, and treats us to the details of constructing violin bows, rehearsing pieces, analysing scores, and more. There's a real passion here, and I came away from the film enthused by Beethoven myself.

The film has a particular focus on one of Beethoven's titular late quartets - his Opus 131, which must be played through without rest or pause, even as the instruments go out of tune. Of course, this is all a grand metaphor for the quartet themselves. Obvious as this may seem, the film occasionally surprises in its efforts to lay this out, with an ending that particularly plays against expectations.

A Late Quartet is no masterpiece, and sadly fails to provide the excellent cast with material worthy of their talents. However, there's an infectious passion for music and music making, and more than enough skill on display to keep you hooked.

4/5

Django Unchained - Review

2013-02-08T14:40:00.001+00:00

I believe this may well be my last ever review for Reelism, as I'm moving on to try and start up a new, bigger, and properly designed blog, and leaving humble Reelism behind. But I thought that a fantastic film from one of my favourite directors would be a fitting send off...

Django Unchained is a Tarantino movie through and through. Rapid-fire dialogue (and bullets), an eclectic soundtrack, and a mishmash of cinematic influences combine to make the director's latest: a blaxploitation Western (or Southern, perhaps more accurately). Jamie Foxx is Django, a freed slave out to do the same for his wife with the help of Christoph Waltz's Dr. King Schultz, a bounty hunter who enlists Django to help him on the way to freeing his wife.

The plot here is simple, purposefully so, leaving the characters room to breathe and develop. And what characters they are. Foxx finds a balance between steely resolve and the almost childish enthusiasm of a slave freed for the first time, facing boundless possibilities. He is, however, outshone by Waltz who is on the same fine form he showed in Inglourious Basterds, delicately navigating Tarantino's complex dialogue, giving us a character who is a delight throughout the film. Mention must also go to DiCaprio, who's slave owner Calvin Candie is the finest sort of grotesque villain, and Samuel L. Jackson, who manages to make sure that he is never likeable or pleasant, but instead makes your skin crawl throughout.

The film has been under considerable scrutiny for its apparently lighthearted treatment of slavery. To those who mount this criticism, I ask: did we watch the same film? Tarantino wields every weapon in his considerable cinematic arsenal to ensure that there is a startling contrast between the violence inflicted upon slaves and the retributive violence inflicted back. When slaves are tortured or abused, it is stark, visceral, and painful to watch. When Django & Schultz take their revenge however, Tarantino takes the same dark glee in it that they do - the tone becomes almost comic book-y, with over-the-top spurts of blood and gunshots that send people flying through the air. We are expected to revel in Django's vengeance, but be sickened by the acts he seeks vengeance for. At no point is slavery treated lightly - instead it is shown in the dark, graphic detail that it deserves, and is shown for the horrific act that it is, and was.

If Django Unchained has a flaw, it's that it doesn't know when to stop - the film reaches a natural climax, and then lurches on for another half hour in a way that feels frankly unnecessary. This drags the ending down, leaving the film with an underwhelming finale, devoid of some of its emotional impact. Excepting this, however, it is a fine film, with more gutwrenching impact than most directors can dream of.

4.5/5

Hunky Dory - Review

2013-01-30T11:46:00.000+00:00

'Fluff' just about sums up Hunky Dory - and not in a bad way, I hasten to add. The '70s set musical, starring Minnie Driver, is charming fun, which seems to be mostly what it aspires to.

The film follows Driver as Viv, the drama teacher in a comprehensive school in Swansea in the '70s as she attempts to put on a bizarre version of The Tempest sound tracked by pop and rock songs. Viv is very big on 'self-expression' as she keeps reminding us throughout the film, and sees musical theatre as the perfect way to help her troubled students manage this. The inevitable antagonists are a prudish social sciences teacher and a hulking rugby coach, which will at least ring true for most of the long-suffering products of the British education system.

The film sports a surprisingly able cast of British teens, and has a few really great musical numbers to boot. Driver is alternately charming and frustratingly smug, the latter invariably occurring whenever she uses 'self-expression' as her catchall defence for crossing all of the boundaries you might normally find between teachers and their teenage students.

The film's real failing is an overstuffed script and cast. There are about 15 subplots at play, mostly concerning teenage romances among the sprawling cast, and the result is that most only get 5 minutes of screentime. This leaves 15 subplots that you don't care about at all, rather than a handful that really keep your attention.

Despite its flaws, the film is still charming fun. But if period Swansea is your thing, Richard Ayoade's superior Submarine is a better bet.

2.5/5

Hyde Park on Hudson - Review

2013-01-28T13:47:00.000+00:00

So, onto that other historical US president film coming out this month - the much less talked about Hyde Park on Hudson. Starring Bill Murray as Franklin D Roosevelt, the film sees him visited by King George VI and Queen Elizabeth in 1939 for a weekend at Roosevelt's country home. The visit is to discuss America's role in the looming war, but director Roger Michell's film has little interest in the politics at play choosing instead to focus on the interplay of the characters and Roosevelt's romantic infidelities.

Fortunately, the interplay between these figures is far more interesting than any attempt to rehash the politics of the times might have been. Murray in particular is a delight, playing Roosevelt as, well, Bill Murray - irascible, cranky, but disarmingly charming in a rather cheeky sort of way. He doesn't stretch himself much here, but he doesn't really need to. Olivia Colman gives a great turn as Elizabeth, mining the comedic potential here but not letting it overwhelm the character. I feel for Samuel West, playing the same King George that Colin Firth picked up an Academy Award for not so long ago. Thankfully, he acquits himself well, but doesn't quite break out of Colman and Murray's shadows.

I have so far avoided mentioning one of the film's principal characters: Daisy, Roosevelt's cousin, played admirably by Laura Linney. She is caught up in an affair with Roosevelt, and through her we see more of his true character. Unfortunately, the film suffers whenever the focus is on this plot line. Most unfortunately, that is more than half of the film. Richard Nelson's script leaves little emotional weight to this relationship, and Daisy is left a far less interesting character than either of the royals. And the less said about one cringe-inducing handjob scene, the better.

I must briefly mention one other point that I know I'm not the only one to pick up on. For all of his may infidelities, Roosevelt is neatly forgiven. Not because of any great act of contrition, or heartfelt apology, but due to a cheeky wink and a bit of charm. As a result, the film's final act is unfulfilling, as the audience waits for closure that is never to arrive, and frustrating, as Roosevelt's transgressions are simply brushed aside.

In all, Hyde Park on Hudson is a slight, charming film that suggests greater depth than it really has. It is bogged down in Roosevelt's affairs, which end up unengaging and unfulfilling, and instead leaves you wanting more from Colman & West's monarchs.

3/5

I Heart Huckabees - Review

2013-01-25T13:41:00.004+00:00

I Heart Huckabees is an odd one. From David O. Russell (The Fighter), it stars Jason Schwartzman as an environmental activist undergoing an existential crisis. He enlists the help of two existential detectives (Dustin Hoffman and Lily Tomlin) to set him right. The film is basically an existential crisis writ large, and made incredibly twee and quirky.

The two philosophies at play in the narrative are both pretty bogus, but that's not really the point - they more represent attitudes towards the world than anything else. The film is incredibly funny, but only so long as you can accept the Wes Anderson-esque quirkiness of it all. I know some find this utterly infuriating, and I Heart Huckabees is not for them.

The cast is strong, my personal highlight being Mark Wahlberg as a petroleum obsessed fireman who is another client of the detectives. Wahlberg brings a tremendous indignant energy here, and lights up the scenes he's in.

Try not to get too drawn in to the dodgy philosophy and you'll find a funny, original, and intriguing film, with more than enough new ideas to earn its keep.

3.5/5

The Jerk - Review

2013-01-23T13:26:00.000+00:00

I first came across The Jerk while watching Judd Apatow's genius TV show Freaks and Geeks. In one memorable episode, one of the geeks is crushed to discover that his seemingly perfect girlfriend hates the film - a serious mark against her, apparently. I understand the sentiment now, though I fear I don't feel quite as strongly as Apatow's geek does about the matter.

The film is resolutely silly. It's the kind of silly humour that some people just don't get, making The Jerk a great test of comedic compatibility. Even better, there's no room for surprise here, as the film is silly from the get go, from the moment Steve Martin's Navin recounts his growing up as a poor black child. From there on, it just gets sillier, the apex being the seen used to demonstrate the point in Freaks and Geeks: on being shot at by a poor marksman who keeps hitting the oil cans next to him, xxx responds by exclaiming that someone must really hate those cans. It's the sort of sublimely ridiculous moment that pops up again and again through this film, driven largely by Martin's clueless title character.

Martin himself is on great form here, though as this was his first film, his greatest performances were yet to come. He manages to keep Navin firmly sympathetic - crucial, given that the character does some pretty terrible things, and yet still has to carry the heart of the film.

The Jerk's only failing comes in consistency. When the jokes work, they really bloody work. But, sadly, when the jokes come as thick and fast as they do here, a few are bound to miss the mark. This would be better if these misses didn't occasionally clump together into brief stretches that fall entirely flat. This doesn't happen more than a couple of times, but such points are a problem in a film that lives and dies by its laughs. The highs are high enough to make this worthwhile though - it's not quite Martin's best, but it's good fun nonetheless. And if you don't laugh at that can scene, I really don't want to date you.

4/5

Lincoln - Review

2013-01-21T22:42:00.001+00:00

Lincoln has achieved the impossible - it's restored my faith in Steven Spielberg. After a succession of films that ranged from good to middling, I was worried that the man didn't have any greats left in him. I'm exceedingly glad to report that I was wrong, and that Lincoln is one of those greats - and hopefully the first of many more (though I'll admit not having too much hope for his next effort, Robopocalypse...)

Wisely focusing on the last years of Lincoln's life, Spielberg shows us a president grappling with his twin desires to abolish slavery and end the civil war, and facing opposition on almost all sides to his plan to achieve both in one fell swoop. Perhaps most interestingly, Spielberg largely avoids mining the easy dramatic grounds provided by the civil war, instead placing the focus on the backroom squabble and senate debates involved in pushing Lincoln's constitutional amendment through. The film's few stumbles come when it does tackle the war, offering little more than shallow observations of the brutality of warfare, something Spielberg himself, and countless others, have tackled before with greater depth and power.

Unsurprisingly, the driving force behind the film's strength is the powerhouse performance from Daniel Day-Lewis. His Lincoln is a towering figure, but a human one. Day-Lewis isn't content with merely playing an historical legend, but insists on finding the person behind the legend instead. This is a man stricken with grief, trying to hold his marriage together, but committed to pushing this energy towards doing good for the people and his country. For me, the brilliance of actor and director combined culminated in a beautiful shot towards the end of the film as we watch a victorious Lincoln walk away from the camera to a fateful night at the opera house. Even here, after the film's great triumph, we see a man walking with an awkward gait, hunching his shoulders and putting his weight more on one leg than the other. It's a subtle touch, and could easily have been overdone, but it leaves the character resolutely human and imperfect.

There's been much talk of the depth of the cast, Spielberg's ability to do for political debates what The Social Network did for programming, and the immaculate period details. All of these are excellent features of the film, and worthy of much praise. However, what makes Lincoln really special is that it is the product of an actor and director in near perfect harmony, working together to craft a performance that must be one of the greats.

5/5

Girl, Interrupted - Review

2013-01-18T13:00:00.000+00:00

In Girl, Interrupted Winona Ryder, Angela Jolie, and a bunch of actresses you recognise from some TV show or other unite to portray the residents of a women's ward in a mental institution, in a film that is alternately much cheerier, and much more depressing, than what you might expect.

Ryder plays Susanna, whose parents have her committed after a pattern of troubled behaviour (drink, drugs, casual sex - the usual stuff) culminates in a failed suicide attempt. Though I suppose describing it as failed is probably slightly unnecessary - don't worry, the plot isn't going down a The Sixth Sense route. Once inside, she comes across her illustrious company from Polly (Mad Men's Elisabeth Moss), who is covered in burns and has the maturity of a particularly childish cocker spaniel, to Daisy (Brittany Murphy), who eats nothing but her father's rotisserie chicken. Finally along comes Angelina Jolie's Lisa, the deranged ringleader of the group. Utterly resistant to both authority and treatment, she makes being trapped in the madhouse seem almost worth it.

Girl, Interrupted is at its best when tackling the darker side of mental illness. Brittany Murphy's character's tragic arc is a particular standout, but Jolie has also been rightly commended for the dark edge that she brings to her performance. She picked up an Academy Award for this film, and it isn't hard to see why - her Lisa is darkly charismatic, drawing in everyone around her, and then fucking them up royally. The consequences of far gone mental illness aren't shied away from, and neither are the harsh realities of dealing with it and facing up to it. The film struggles more when it veers into the life affirming self-help book territory, one culprit being Whoopi Goldberg's Valerie, who has more than a little of the mystic negro trope to her.

The film is not without its comedic moments, and it would be remiss of me to ignore them. By and large, they're great, and drive the first half of the film. However, it's the dark final act that'll stick with you - if only you could edit out Whoopi Goldberg's attempts to inspire.

3.5/5

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas - Review

2013-01-16T14:13:00.000+00:00

Hunter S Thompson was a fucking nutter. I've known this for a while, but I don't think I really knew it until I watched Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Terry Gilliam's big screen adaptation of Thompson's magnum opus is the kind of film that sits you down, force feeds you potent hallucinogens, and proceeds to kick you in the head to make damn well sure you don't know what's going on.

Thompson (Johnny Depp) and his lawyer (a genuinely terrifying Benicio del Toro) head to Vegas so that Thompson can cover a desert race. Through a fearsome cocktail of drugs and alcohol, a procession of big name cameos, and just a little bit of violence, they wreak havoc on the city and the people they come across.

Fear and Loathing is a brilliant realisation of Gilliam's visual style, and I would trust no one else to depict hallucinations quite so memorably or vividly. If you ever want to know what it might feel like to take an assortment of drugs, this is the film for you. If you get it into your head to take anything stronger than a glass of wine while watching, then god help you. And if for some terrible reason you decide to reenact the film's pharmaceutical gluttony, then I'm afraid there's not much that god can do for you.

Watch this film. You won't know what's happened, and you'll probably have the mother of all hangovers by the end, but no other film is quite like it. Which is probably for the best, I think two of these might kill me.

4.5/5

Life of Pi - Review

2013-01-14T16:52:00.000+00:00

Ang Lee's Life of Pi is a great counter-example for all of the CGI detractors of the world - here is a film utterly reliant on computer effects, stuffed with them throughout, and yet one that uses these effects to tell a simple, powerful, and moving story. There are no giant robot fights here (not that I don't love a good giant robot fight or two), but instead the story of a boy and a tiger trapped on a boat in the middle of the Pacific. The much talked about tiger is a huge accomplishment - beautifully animated and expressive, so much so that the artifice of the CGI simply melts away.

Newcomer Suraj Sharma gives an impressive turn as the titular Pi, all the more impressive given that he presumably spent most of the shoot talking to the empty space where the tiger would later be added. Irrfan Khan and Rafe Spall bookend the film, and Khan in particular brings a great deal of warmth to his role.

Those who've seen one of Lee's films before won't be surprised to hear that Life of Pi is beautifully shot. Lee has taken full advantage of the freedoms offered by green screen, using it to stage perfectly composed shots. There are moments here that just might take your breath away, especially if you get the chance to watch this on a cinema screen.

Finally, the area that I was most way about going in. Spiritual messages can sink a film if handled clumsily, leaving trite messages and heavy-handed symbolism. Mercifully, Pi renders these concerns unnecessary. There is undeniably a spiritual vein to the film, but it would be poorer without it. Lee leaves the spiritual themes on the table letting the audience make their own mind up. This is a story that will make us believe in God, we're told, and although it falls short of that lofty goal, it remains a beautiful story, beautifully told.

5/5

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Review

2013-01-06T23:31:00.003+00:00

It's become a bit of a cliché at this point to complain that The Hobbit's new 48fps format is too real, or that it makes the film look like a cheap TV soap opera. Thankfully, I can avoid all such clichés by virtue of having failed to actually see the 48fps version. Instead, I can confirm that the 24fps format looks pretty much like every other 24fps film, which really isn't much of a discovery.

Moving onto genuine discussion of the film itself, novel as that may be, The Hobbit is fine. It's definitely not a bad film, but it does struggle to rise much above... fine. This will be most obvious to those who have watched The Lord of the Rings, as Peter Jackson's prior efforts in Middle-Earth make his latest seem resolutely pedestrian.

Martin Freeman and Ian McKellen lead the way in a strong cast, remaining clear standouts throughout. Freeman in particular bears the burden of the film's major arc, that of Bilbo's slow transformation into a brave and capable adventurer.

This arc is a compelling one, but suffers from being one of the few present, and the only one that Jackson can bring to anything close to a resolution. Inevitably, much of the film serves as setup for the two remaining installments. This would be no major problem, except for the fact that most of the rest of the film serves as setup for The Lord of the Rings. These sections feel purposeless and baggy, adding needless fluff to a film that's already overstretched. Large sections of the film offer no progress to narrative or character arcs, serving only to add set pieces and inflate the film's running time. This would be a crippling problem if Jackson's set pieces weren't so well assembled and entertaining, but it's hard not to feel like you're watching Jackson playing for time.

There's a great 2 hour film here. Sadly, it's hidden inside a bloated 3 hour one. The strong cast, brilliant spectacle, and beautiful detail of Middle-Earth all do their best to make up for this, but I'm afraid little short of a better editor could make this film the classic it should be.

3.5/5

Skyfall - Review

2012-11-08T12:00:00.000+00:00

Skyfall is the Bond-iest Bond film Daniel Craig has starred in yet, and quite possibly the Bond-iest that's been released in my lifetime. By Bond-iest, I of course mean the closest to the Sean Connery films, which all right thinking people know are the best ones around. Moore & Brosnan are pure camp, Dalton humourless, and the less said about Lazenby the better. The Connery films had just the right balance between Bond, cold superspy, and Bond, wisecracking womaniser. Daniel Craig's previous outings, the stunning Casino Royale and the equally stunning, but for the wrong reasons, Quantum of Solace, showed every sign that Bond had lost his sense of humour for good - it's refreshing to see a little of it creep back in.

Released in the franchise's 50th anniversary year, Skyfall is a celebration of everything 007 - the first meta-Bond film. Where Casino Royale went to gritty extremes to distance itself from the excesses of the Brosnan years, Skyfall attempts to strike a balance - maintaining the realism of Craig's previous outings while acknowledging the sense of fun so crucial to the best Bond films. Craig is his usual scowling self, but this time around he's accompanied by a flamboyant villain, the latest tech from Q branch, and a few old gadgets from the vaults too.

Lest I forget, there are a few details worthy of significant praise. Firstly, Judi Dench finally gives a Bond film the best of her considerable abilities. She has a real role to play in this film, and rises above the limited characterisation she's been given in the past to give a stellar performance. Secondly, Javier Bardem is exactly as bizarre and brilliant as I hoped he would be. Silva is genuinely scene-stealing, especially when playing off Craig's Bond. Finally, the Bond films have never been known for their camerawork, but Roger Deakins' cinematography is at times breath-taking. Obvious highlights are the Shanghai segment and Bond's entrance into the Macau casino, but there's beautiful work throughout.

The film is preoccupied by the question of the relevance of a Cold War spy in the modern era, and with it the relevance of a Cold War film franchise in a film industry that's progressed in a lot of respects. Mendes answers both questions in one go with an update of the old formula that digs a little deeper in Bond's psyche and backstory - before sending him off in an Aston Martin DB5 with a built-in ejector seat. Bond is a bit behind the times, but he doesn't need to be retired, he just needs a fresh coat of paint. Not to mix metaphors or anything.

Skyfall brings the franchise full circle, ending by setting up what was once the status quo, but with a few suitably modern touches. While Casino Royale was almost ashamed of its past, Skyfall embraces it, celebrates it, and gives a bloody convincing case for why Bond still deserves his place in the cinematic hierarchy.

4.5/5

Ruby Sparks - Review

2012-11-07T17:04:00.000+00:00

Ruby Sparks brings with it a fair amount of indie pedigree, coming as it does from the directors of Little Miss Sunshine and starring Paul Dano, whose career was kickstarted by that very film, but who has gone on to even loftier heights since. Rounding the group off is writer and co-star Zoe Kazan, who I was previously unaware of, and none of whose films I've seen. But she was in Revlolutionary Road and Meek's Cutoff, both of which are supposed to be good, so there's that.

Ruby Sparks falls short of the high standard set by Little Miss Sunshine, lacking the earlier film's energy and punch characterisation, but it is engaging, thoughtful, and very touching at points. Dano's Calvin Weir-Fields is a child prodigy author who isn't a child anymore, and is suffering from some pretty substantial writer's block. Following his therapist's advice, Calvin begins to write about Ruby, the literal girl of his dreams. Pouring his heart onto the page, Calvin finds himself falling in love with his own creation - at which point she turns up in his apartment, seemingly oblivious to her own fictional nature.

Ruby Sparks uses this high concept conceit for some very grounded discussion of relationship dynamics. Calvin's total control over Ruby's very nature provides the perfect mechanism by which to consider the way we all try to control our significant others, and shape them to better suit our own lives. Most importantly, the film doesn't attempt to shy away from the consequences of this, or its dark side, brought to life most vividly in the film's climactic sequence.

This central idea is a strong one, but it is apparent that Kazan is unsure of how to spin this out over a whole film. The film spends far too much of its time building up to Calvin's attempts to control Ruby, despite leaving the audience in little doubt that it would be happening later on in the film. The result is that much of the first half of the film feels needlessly dragged out, and does little to enhance the impact of the stronger second half.

Attempts to tackle anything beyond the central relationship fall similarly flat. Subplots involving Calvin's brother and mother feel tacked on, especially the latter, which has little impact either thematically or narratively, and seems mostly to be an excuse to make Antonio Banderas say some faintly ridiculous lines. That isn't to say this sequence isn't enjoyable - it's pretty hilarious - but it only weakly ties into the core of the film, and serves largely to pad out the running time.

This is an undeniably ambitious film, tackling a novel high concept plot, which serves up some superb moments and real insights, but not quite enough of them to fill out a full feature.

3.5/5

Don't Look Now - Review

2012-11-06T13:20:00.000+00:00

Nicolas Roeg's Don't Look Now has become such an undisputed classic of the horror genre that it's hard to approach it from a neutral perspective - everything I'd heard about the film assured me of its quality and influence, making it hard to separate the film from its own reputation. With that caveat firmly in place, I can assure you that I thought Don't Look Now was marvellous from start to finish - beautifully shot, sinister at all times, and constantly surprising in its pacing and direction. The film has become known to a large extent only by its infamously explicit sex scene and that ending, which I dare not spoil for you as it was once spoilt for me. Thankfully the film survives such spoilers because it is so much more than those two scenes - and in fact watching those scenes in isolation robs them of almost all their power.

Donald Sutherland is at his moustachioed finest as John Baxter, a father mourning his child and attempting to manage a wife who has become convinced that their daughter is watching over them, and warning them away from Venice, where he is currently restoring an aged church. Sutherland portrays a rational man struggling to cope with irrational events, haunted by visions of his daughter roaming the streets of Venice in her bright red mac. Early on in the film it seems that John is coping well with the tragedy, but over the course of the film we see how easily this crumbles when faced with even the slightest hope. By contrast, Julie Christie's Laura embraces this hope fully, taking advantage of the catharsis it provides rather than chasing after the possibility of her daughter's full return.

Roeg makes great use of colour to forge thematic links, most notably of course in the use of the red macintosh - by the time the end credits roll, the viewer is firmly conditioned to find that startling bright red unsettling, disturbing even, so effectively does Roeg use it.

Most effective of all, and most surprising to me, is the use of Venice itself. In Roeg's hands the city becomes an all encompassing threat, its inhabitants and even its streets seem to somehow be colluding against John. Every untranslated line of Italian dialogue seems conspiratorial, every twist and turn of a Venetian alleyway to be set there with the intention to confuse. This has the effect of making even the most innocent of scenes and characters threatening, leaving the film unrelenting in its fright. There's no reprieve here, with every moment leaving John more and more isolated, and vulnerable to the real threat lurking in Venice. That this real threat is mentioned in passing throughout the film, as part of the very backdrop, makes it doubly effective. You assume it to be mere window dressing, part of the tone, and by the time the reality becomes clear it is already too late.

Don't Look Now is a tour de force of psychological horror, where the scares come from the film's setting and tragic core, rather than the judicious application of gore. The film has a slow burn, but there is much to appreciate, and I'm sure there is much more that I missed.

5/5

John Dies at the End - Review

2012-10-29T23:42:00.000+00:00

I'm not entirely sure that it's possible to describe the plot of John Dies at the End and do it justice, as the latest from cult director Don Coscarelli defies most logical explanation. Based on a novel by David Wong (aka Jason Pargin, aka the editor of Cracked) the film sees protagonist David Wong (yes, he named the main character after his own pseudonym... except it's a pseudonym in the film too) takes a strange drug named Soy Sauce and finds himself dealing with some freaky shit. Along the way best friend John dies (duh), communicates with David through a Bratwurst, and together they fight off meat monsters and flying moustaches. And that's only in the first half hour or so.

As may be clear by now, John Dies at the End is nothing if not inventive, and there are brilliant, bizarre ideas throughout the film, ensuring it never gets stale. This isn't craziness for craziness' sake though, and things never feel forced. Everything that happens, no matter how odd, always feels purposeful, and serves the story well. Even the flying moustache.

Budget constraints drove Coscarelli to use almost exclusively practical effects, but it pays off in spades. Somehow the obvious fakeness of the creatures only adds to the film's surreal tone, while the visceral nature of the practical effects makes sure everything seems alarmingly real. The contrast between the physicality and the fakeness go a long way towards setting up the film's off kilter tone.

What little publicity the film has received has largely been thanks to an appearance from Paul Giamatti, who did much to help the film secure its funding. Giamatti's journalist serves as the film's through-line, operating as an audience stand-in having events explained to him by a David eager to get the truth out. Giamatti is a delight, but never outshines David, portrayed by newcomer Chase Williamson.

One of the greatest delights of John Dies at the End is that it feels at once modern and refreshingly old-fashioned. Modern in that it is carving into new thematic territory with the kind of eclectic ADHD-stylings possible only from the editor of Cracked; but old-fashioned in its delight in practical effects, oozing monsters, and a sense of the fun that can be had in a film like this. This is more Evil Dead than Paranormal Activity, and that can only be a good thing.

5/5

Scanners - Review

2012-09-27T13:29:00.000+01:00

Scanners is an early Cronenberg film. For those in the know, that means blood, guts, the icky bits in between, and probably a few things you didn't even know were part of the body. For those not in the know, it's exactly the same, you'll just have a look of mildly horrified shock on your face the whole way through. In other words, it's bloody brilliant (pun fully intended).

The film follows Cameron, a good-for-nothing vagrant innocently wondering round shopping centres giving old ladies migraines until he's kidnapped by one of those sinister corporations that exist purely to run secret experimental weapon programmes. Lo and behold, they turn out to be running a secret experimental weapon programme, only Cameron is the weapon. He's a scanner, aka a telepath with the ability to control people's bodily functions. Naturally, for Cronenberg that means the scanners can make people's heads explode. You'll be seeing a fair few exploding heads in this one, so you'd better just get used to it really.

Cameron is played by Stephen Lack, the weirdest actor in the world. I mean, how the fuck did Cronenberg find this guy? He reads his lines like he doesn't even understand English, and maybe he honestly doesn't. Impossibly, it kind of works in the film's favour, contributing to the palpable sense that this is some weird ass shit going on. However, relatable is one thing that Cameron isn't, so bear that in mind, I guess.

Stealing the show, as he has a tendency to, is Michael Ironside as Darryl Revok, a villain whose love for exploding heads is matched only by his charisma, which ends up making you really want him to keep on exploding all the heads he wants. Then again, I've watched a lot of really crap films purely because Michael Ironside was in them, so take that with a pinch of salt.

Cronenberg has a remarkable ability to take material that should be no more than a B-movie gorefest, and elevating it to the elusive status of an almost arthouse gorefest. You'll go for the exploding heads, then stay for the batshit craziness of it all. Admittedly, Scanners isn't quite on the level of his best. The body horror never quite reaches the illness-inducing levels of The Fly (though may make you look at that next headache in a whole new light), and the film isn't really saying anything especially profound with its hour and a half. However, 'not Cronenberg's best' is hardly damning criticism, and I'd be hard pressed not to recommend Scanners. Just keep some paracetamol handy just in case.

4/5

Taken - Review

2012-08-31T13:57:00.001+01:00

Taken is basically an exercise in proving that Liam Neeson is superb at acting, life, and basically everything. The film is wholly set up to make his character, ex-CIA agent Bryan Mills, an unrepentant badass. From the action scenes to the brief, gravelly dialogue, Taken gives Neeson every chance to prove himself an action star, and with great success. The film's plot is basic, the rest of the cast is a bit lacking, and the emotional care is basically just not there, but once Neeson delivers his now famous "I will find you, I will kill you," speech the film doesn't really let up.

Luc Besson, one of my absolute favourite directors, takes a writing credit here, and his influence shows. From the Parisian setting to the sparse dialogue and dark tone, this is a Besson film in the fashion of Nikita and Leon, which can only be a good thing, although director Pierre Morel is admittedly not quite up to Besson's standard.

Taken also touches on some of the issues surrounding human trafficking in Europe, especially sex trafficking. This is handled with as much sensitivity as you'd expect from a film in which Liam Neeson electrocutes someone to death, but it makes an interesting, and occasionally powerful, backdrop to an action film.

At the end of the day, you're watching Taken purely to see Liam Neeson growl at people and then shoot them in the face. In that case, the film is absolutely perfect. The shooting is top notch, Neeson's voice sounds like it could cut steel, and the bodycount is through the roof. Just don't watch it expecting much death.

4/5

Beetlejuice - Review

2012-08-30T00:03:00.000+01:00

Beetlejuice is a little weird. Which is only to be expected from an early Tim Burton film, I suppose, but I thought it was worth mentioning anyway. Geena Davis & Alec Baldwin play two recently deceased ghosts attempting to evict the new human residents of their home, and hiring the eponymous bio-exorcist Betelgeuse (Michael Keaton) in order to do so. Obviously, this being a Burton film, things are not quite what they seem, characters are kooky, and the design work is kaleidoscopic, to say the least, but Beetlejuice is all the better for it.

The Burton aesthetic is a clear strength here - it's hard not to feel that being Burton-y came naturally then, in a way that it just doesn't anymore. Nothing feels forced, and in fact some sections are positively superb. A personal favourite is the after world office scene, which smacks of nothing more than a gothic version of Terry Gilliam's excellent Brazil.

The cast is strong, and refreshingly Johnny Depp & Helena Bonham-Carter-free. I've been a fan of Geena Davis ever since I saw Thelma & Louise, and she showcases the same easy charm here, along with solid comic timing. Of course, Keaton is the standout, and rightly so. His Betelgeuse is sleazy, creepy, and utterly charismatic. You can't quite take your eyes off him, and if you did you'd probably miss something brilliant.

Beetlejuice is funny, and a little bit horrific, and reminded me how brilliant Tim Burton once was (and how brilliant I hope he will be again, hopefully with Frankenweenie). It's a juvenile film, but it revels in it, and it's hard to stay aloof from the charming humour on display.

4/5

The Machinist - Review

2012-08-22T15:08:00.000+01:00

Confession time: for about 3 years I had The Machinist completely confused with Insomnia, and was convinced that it was a Christopher Nolan film. It was with some confusion that I eventually watched Insomnia and realised that that was the Nolan film, and I've been wanting to finally watch The Machinist ever since. All of that meant that I had a fair bit of expectation built up for this film, which it was likely never going to live up to. Which is not to say that I didn't enjoy the film, only that it was a slight let down when compared to my (frankly unrealistic) expectations.

What The Machinist actually is is a neat little thriller from Brad Anderson, famously starring Christian Bale at an eye-watering 110lbs. He plays a factory machinist who's stopped sleeping or eating, and slowly becomes convinced that there's a conspiracy after him. Inevitably, it's a twist movie, and I won't spoil that twist here, but suffice it to say that things are not as they seem.

Bale is great here, and I'm not usually too big a fan of his. He's charming, mad, and a little bit horrifying, and that's not even mentioning his astonishing physical condition for the film. The rest of the cast are great too, including an on-form Jennifer Jason Leigh, and the always welcome Michael Ironside. What's really important to thrillers such as this is the plot and the writing however, and this is less consistent. The all important twist is telegraphed far too early, making it sadly predictable, and the film also gives a definitive answer to the question of the main character's sanity sooner than I would have liked. The result is a film that is occasionally mind-bending, but more often will leave you disappointed in its predictability. Watch it for Bale, but don't expect too much out of it.

3/5

Arnie's Back

2012-08-20T19:55:00.000+01:00

With the arrival of The Expendables 2 in cinemas this week, Arnie is definitely back, just as he kept on promising. The ex-Governator is once again taking on starring roles - not just in The Expendables 2, but also alongside Stallone in The Tomb, and on his own in The Last Stand. I mean, look at those film titles! This is classic Schwarzenegger stuff, and I bloody love it. The plots are no less ridiculous. The Tomb sees Schwarzenegger & Stallone attempting to break out of an ultra-high security prison - that Stallone’s character designed. Meanwhile, The Last Stand sees Arnie as the small town Sheriff who’s the only one able to stop a crazy drug lord making it over the border into Mexico. There’s even a trailer for that one, replete with explosions, one-liners, and some fucking big guns. OK, sure, there are no time travelling robots or camouflaged aliens this time around, and Arnie probably won’t be crushing his enemies, seeing them driven before him, or hearing the lamentation of their women, but at least he’s not playing Mr. Freeze, right?

As a self-professed Arnie fanboy, I’ve long awaited his return to the big screen. Schwarzenegger movies were a formative part of my youth, after all - I grew up with The Terminator, Predator, and even The Running Man, and I’m one of the few people alive today who owns a DVD copy of Hercules in New York, his first ever film role. Schwarzenegger was nothing short of an icon for my young self, and I’ll defend the Austrian oak to my death. Whether he’s telling you to get to da choppa or riding a police horse in a lift, Arnie is one hell of a screen presence, with the amazing ability to turn cheese into absolute gold.

And quite frankly, we need him back on the big screen. There’s never been anyone else quite like him - Stallone, despite popular perception, did actually tend to take fewer lighthearted roles than Schwarzenegger did. Then there was Van Damme, and Seagal, and Lundgren, but none of them managed the dizzying heights of Arnie’s success. I mean, this is a guy known for being nothing more than a weight-lifting action star, and he’s been in 4 of the best sci-fi films ever made, and worked with James Cameron, Ivan Reitman, and even Oliver Stone (who wrote Conan the Barbarian, in case you’re wondering).

These days, the closest we’ve got is Jason Statham leading the good fight for old fashioned action films, while everyone else has fucked off to be a superhero. Fair play, superheroes are pretty awesome too. But sometimes you just want an overly muscled semi-literate wielding an assault rifle in one hand and an RPG in the other to save the day, and that’s where Schwarzenegger comes into play. Take the recent Total Recall remake. You know why that bombed at the box office? Because Colin Farrell, great as he is, is no Schwarzenegger. The big guy was able to shoot his wife in the head, tell her to “consider that a divorce”, and absolutely sell it. Farrell just can’t pull that kind of Oscar-worthy shit off.

So the big question is, what now for Arnie? The Tomb & The Last Stand are a good start, but what are his long term prospects? Well, he’s threatening Triplets, a sequel to Twins, and, well, even I won’t defend that one. Does anyone want to see a sequel to Twins? Anyone? There’s also the constant murmurs of a 5th Terminator film, which we can hopefully all agree would be awesome/terrible. I mean, I love the first two, and seeing Arnie stepping back into his most famous role would be amazing... but we all know that film would probably be rubbish. Long-term collaborator James Cameron is busy with his Avatar sequels, and sadly I can’t really see a giant blue Austrian alien fitting in with that universe. What we need is something new, something sci-fi, and something with the potential for judicious use of one-liners. Or, failing that, stick him in some spandex and he can be the next Batman. That’ll work, right?

Little Miss Sunshine - Review

2012-08-16T12:46:00.000+01:00

When it was first released, Little Miss Sunshine was one of those annual indie darlings - films that all of a sudden everyone's talking about, and everyone has to go see, despite its minuscule budget (and marketing budget). All too often these films fail to live up to the impossible hype, but Little Miss Sunshine is one of the few lucky survivors. Frankly, it's just a damn good film.

Following a dysfunctional (to put it mildly) family on a road trip to get young daughter Olive (Abigail Breslin) to Little Miss Sunshine, a Californian beauty pageant for kids. Alongside Olive you've got a Nietzsche-reading teen who's taken a vow of silence; a gay, suicidal Proust scholar; a heroine-addicted grandpa; an exhausted mother; and a self-help guru father whose career is failing. All of these characters are a bit fucked up in their own ways, but the film is a captivating story of how they come together regardless of their personal issues, and learn to at least put up with each other again.

The film's finale is now infamous for its look at the grim world of children's beauty pageants, showing it for the frankly sinister thing that it is through a set-piece that I'd hate to spoil for anyone. Suffice to say, you'll spend much of the last 20 minutes feeling a bit icky, but there is a masterful payoff.

The film falls flat for me in one area, and that is Paul Dano's Dwayne, the aforementioned Nietzsche-reading teenage son. Dano does a great job with the part, but the writing for his character is a bit too on the nose. His arc hinges around his desire to be a fighter pilot, leading to a climactic scene that is undeniably powerful. The problem is that the audience is never given a reason to care about his plans to be a pilot. We're never shown his obsession, only told about it. This isn't helped by the fact that pasty Nietzsche-reading geeks don't tend to be aspiring fighter pilots. I should know, having been a pasty Nietzsche-reading geek myself (which I arguably still am). The obsession was clearly included solely with the climax in mind, and seems to go against everything else we see of the character, leaving his arc forced and inorganic.

These problems aside, Little Miss Sunshine is a fun film that's got enough depth to keep you interested, aided by an assortment of fascinating characters.

4/5

Back to the Future

2012-08-14T18:46:00.000+01:00

So today I'm actually linking to something that I didn't write... but my 10 year old sister Aimee did. Budding film critic that she is, she reviewed Back to the Future, and did a damn good job of it.

Dolores Claiborne - Review

2012-08-10T13:38:00.000+01:00

Dolores Claiborne is one of the many Stephen King film adaptations out there, and joins some of the best of them in not being based on one of his supernatural works. For whatever reason King's supernatural stories have tended to struggle in their big-screen adaptations (The Shining and The Green Mile perhaps being the notable exceptions), or at least more so than the author's naturalistic output. Young reporter Selena (Jennifer Jason Leigh) heads home to visit her mother Dolores (Kathy Bates) who has been accused of murdering the elderly woman that she worked as a maid for. The film retains ambiguity for some time as to whether or not Dolores is guilty, but more interesting is the slow discovery, through flashbacks, of how Dolores and Selena became so estranged, it eventually tying in to Selena's abusive father.

It wouldn't quite be fair to call Dolores Claiborne a twist movie, but it does deal extensively in suspenseful reveals of pivotal moments in the family's history. The focus is not on the twists themselves, however, but on what they mean for the central relationship between Selena and her mother. This relationship is the core of the film, and it's a credit to director Taylor Hackford that it remains credible and captivating throughout the film.

The clear standout performance comes from Kathy Bates, whose Dolores manages to be irritable and dominating even as she is also utterly tragic. Bates never loses the character's strength in attempts to play up the audience's sympathy, which is crucial to making her more than just another instance of the beaten woman archetype. Technically, the film is capable, but typically unremarkable. The cinematography and script are solid throughout, but rarely inspire. Dolores Claiborne is a good film made great by Bates' astonishing display.

4/5

Sideways - Review

2012-08-08T13:00:00.000+01:00

Sideways follows Miles (Paul Giamatti) and Jack (Thomas Haden Church), two best friends on a wine tasting holiday in California. Miles is the wine expert of the two, but is grappling with a messy divorce and a struggling career as a novelist, while Jack is ostensibly celebrating his imminent marriage but is, of course, having his doubts. Almost the entire film takes place in Californian wine country, and there is wine everywhere. Three of the four main characters are wine connoisseurs, and they talk about it a lot. The film functions pretty much as wine porn, as characters pontificate on the virtues of different grapes while the camera lingers on shots of bottles being emptied into glasses. While watching it I was constantly fighting the urge to go pour myself a glass, and if Sideways doesn't make you want to become an expert on wine then nothing will.

Thankfully, director Alexander Payne (The Descendants) ensures the film is about an awful lot more than wine. The focus is squarely on Miles & Jack's friendship, and questions the responsibilities and obligations that the friends hold to one another through looking at their romantic relationships with others. Giamatti and Haden Church both give standout performances, presenting characters who are at once incredibly likable and deeply flawed. Giamatti is especially brilliant, bringing Miles's depression and neuroticism out with enough subtlety to keep the character grounded and likable even as he makes some frustrating decisions.

Sideways is witty and comical, but is certainly not lacking in dramatic heft. There's serious stuff here beneath Miles's witticisms and Jack's boorishness, and Sideways is well worth your time. And seriously, the wine just looks fucking amazing.

4.5/5

The Dark Knight Trilogy

2012-08-07T12:13:00.000+01:00

So, Christopher Nolan is done with Batman, and he leaves behind what many are already claiming is the best film trilogy of all time. It's easy to see why - after all, most other realistic contenders fluffed the landing, ending on a sour note, something that I have argued Nolan has avoided.

Such arguments seem a bit pointless to me. I'm rarely interested in ranking films, let alone trilogies, though I'll admit that I wouldn't say the Dark Knight Trilogy is the best around. However, I am interested in studying Nolan's three Bat-films as a trilogy; to see which themes carry through, how the films hang together, and whether or not they form a cohesive whole. This is a particularly interesting question since Nolan's films were not made with a trilogy in mind - he insists that he approached each of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight with little thought as to what might follow, and never signed a contract committing him to more than one film at a time.

Given this fact, it's remarkable how well the films do hold up as a whole. Plot elements from both of the earlier films carry through to the third, as do several prominent themes. The links to Batman Begins are particularly interesting, as they have the effect of bringing the story full circle, concluding Batman's arc with heavy reference to his origins. My main interest here is with the themes to be found throughout the films, of which I'll discuss the following: fear; consequences; symbols; and Bruce's reasons for being Batman. These are by no means the only themes in the trilogy, and potentially aren't even the most important ones, but they're what interest me the most.

So, first up, fear. I've already discussed the crucial role of fear as a theme in Batman Begins. Batman masters his own fear, but uses fear against his enemies, just as they use fear against Gotham's innocents. Fear is less prominent in The Dark Knight, but it crops up from time to time. Firstly, the power of fear is once again emphasised - Gotham's mob bosses turn to the Joker precisely because they fear Batman, and that same fear drives them to meet in broad daylight. Secondly, there is a small scene in which Maroni explains that the mob are no longer afraid of Batman because unlike the Joker he has rules, and won't kill them. As afraid as they were of Batman, they're bloody terrified of the Joker. To be feared is to have power, to be fearful is to be powerless. The Dark Knight Rises then comes along and subverts this message. Batman is made weaker by being fearless - it takes fear for his own life to rise out of the literal, and metaphorical, pit that Batman finds himself within. Bane also finds his power from a place other than fear - he leads his troops thanks to inspiring fanaticism & admiration in them, not fear, and it is for this reason that they'll gladly die to serve his cause. Of course, fear is one tool he employs in controlling Gotham's people, but his highly politicised speeches seem more potent, making Gotham, or at least some of its residents, believe in him more than they fear him. Batman himself reaches victory by turning Bane's own tactics against him. The final confrontation is notably in daylight, not at night, and for once Bruce leads an army rather than fighting alone. He wins not by making his enemies fear him, but by making Gotham love him. Fear is a potent weapon, but Batman learns in The Dark Knight Rises that it is not the only one.

The unintended or unexpected consequences of our actions is another big theme for the trilogy, particularly used to carry development between films. The unintended consequences of Bruce's actions in Batman Begins have significant ramifications later on. Scaring the mob so much is what turns them towards the Joker, and allows his crime spree to take place. Allowing Ra's al Ghul to die is what prompts Talia to take up his mantle, leading to the events of The Dark Knight Rises. The fateful lie at the end of The Dark Knight is what allows Bane to both justify releasing Blackgate's prisoners and turn Gotham against Gordon. All of this serves to illustrate Nolan's attempts to push a more complicated morality onto this comic book world. Heroes and villains are not clear cut, and sometimes an act with the best of intentions can have dire consequences. Batman of course constantly strives to do the right thing, but at times makes things much worse in the process, showing how difficult it is to be the hero, and making it clear just how complicated Nolan's Gotham is.

The power of symbols recurs as a topic quite regularly across the Bat-films. In Begins, Bruce becomes Batman so that he can be something more than just a man - a man can be killed, but a symbol represents an idea, and ideas can't be killed. Batman represents the idea that criminals should face justice, and should fear justice. Bruce could try and reduce crime as Bruce Wayne, billionaire philanthropist, but Batman is a far more potent symbol. In The Dark Knight we see the importance of symbols and ideas as Harvey Dent becomes the White Knight, representing the power of ordinary people and the law to maintain justice. Batman even decides that this is a more important symbol than Batman, one that can inspire the right sort of change. Batman inspired copycat vigilantes and supervillains, but Dent can inspire hope and justice, and so one symbol is sacrificed for the other. The Dark Knight Rises once again subverts some of the work in the first two films, suggesting that Batman can be symbolic of more than just criminals' fear, that Batman can inspire the people of Gotham and be their hero just as well as Dent ever could by performing the sort of heroic feats that no-one else can. Most importantly, The Dark Knight Rises reinforces the idea that Batman is a symbol, not a man. Bruce retires as Batman, but John Blake is set up to take up the cowl, so that the symbol can be preserved even without the man. The separation between man and symbol is reinforced by Bruce's realisation that he has to have a life beyond Batman - if Batman can continue without Bruce, then the reverse should be true as well, and Bruce can allow himself to pass the symbol on.

Finally, and closely related, is the discussion of Bruce's motivations. He of course originally leaves Gotham driven by fear and anger, and with the League of Shadows he drives out the fear, leaving anger as his chief motivator. He of course seeks justice in Gotham, but justice isn't what drives him, only anger is strong enough to push him through what he does. However, it remains an anger tempered by justice, which is what separates him from Ra's al Ghul and the League. The Dark Knight sees him driven in part by guilt - he feels responsible in part for the rise of the Joker, and must fix his own mistakes. This is amplified by Rachel's death, in which Batman goes to the wrong location, saving Dent and not Rachel, and surely partly blaming himself. I would argue that it is this guilt that partly drives him towards the film's climactic lie - he already feels that he has done harm as Batman, that the symbol is corrupt, for him at least, and so he corrupts it for Gotham as well. The Dark Knight Rises shows us a Bruce who no longer wants to be Batman, but doesn't know how to be anything else. When he does take up the cowl again, he's driven once again by anger, but also by arrogance, the belief that as Batman he can still stop any threat. There is also, importantly, more than a little guilt and self-hatred in there. As Alfred suggests, it seems on occasion that Bruce wants to die as Batman. He doesn't care whether he lives or dies because he can no longer see any life beyond being Batman, but a part of him hates being Batman. His important discovery, that he wants a life past Batman, is crucial in driving him to fight Bane for the sake of the people of Gotham, and not only out of anger and guilt. Bruce's psyche is shown to be complex throughout the trilogy, and Nolan does his best to take a serious look at the mental state of someone who chooses to dress up as a bat and fight crime, and the results are understandably dark.

This is, inevitably, a rather incomplete look at the Dark Knight Trilogy. Whatever flaws Nolan's films have, they are rich with ideas, and there is much to discuss in them.