1.21 Gigawatts!!!

2008-04-28T04:28:00.000-07:00

Monday 28th April 2008
The Oxford Murders (UK/Spain)
Director - Alex De La Iglesia
Cast - Elijah Wood, John Hurt, Leonor Watling...

* * * * *

The Oxford Murders is reportedly billing itself as a 'thinking mans' The Da Vinci Code'. If this is true, then never has there been such a damning critique of Darren Brown's novel. For The Oxford Murders is quite ridiculous, and only those who have undergone a lobotomy will find it the least bit entertaining.

A harsh assessment? Yes. But still, some of the glaring mistakes that Alex De La Iglesia makes are simply unforgivable. The Da Vinci Code was utter rubbish, yet at least it was endearing and mildly entertaining because Brown had took the time to create believable characters and fragments of fact. De La Iglesis however, throws any sort of believability right out of the window in the opening minutes. Elijah Wood (In a similar way to Michael J Fox used to be) is a very difficult actor to cast. He is woefully mis-cast in this picture. Not one, but two female protagonists fall head over heels for Wood's character in the space of literally hours. One is even brazen enough to brand around the 'L' word. People have chewed gum for a longer time than it has taken these women to surrender to Wood's charm. As likable and handsome as he may be, Wood is certainly no Brando or Bogart. The sight of this maths geek licking spaghetti off of Leonor Watlings chest is preposterous.

As is the pseudo-intellectual jargon that litters the dialogue. It doesn't take a mathematician to work out that what they are saying makes no sense at all. The plot has so many holes in it, you could drive a double decker bus through them. The saving grace of the whole movie is John Hurt, who just about manges to escape with his dignity in tact. What is most frustrating, is that you can see what De La Iglesia is trying to do, and he has managed to assemble a great cast. Yet his execution way off mark. The way Almodovar actress Watling is restricted to nothing other than having her cleavage photographed is quite laughable, even borderline offensive at times.

This film has very few redeeming features over than the shock and awe factor of watching just how badly everyone involved managed to get it wrong.

2008-04-22T11:25:00.000-07:00

Monday 21st April 2008
Happy-Go-Lucky - (UK)
Director - Mike Leigh
Cast - Sally Hawkins, Eddie Marsan, Alexis Zegerman...

* * * * *

Sally Hawkins' performance in Happy-Go-Lucky has been getting all the plaudits and you can certainly see why. It is an endearing, sympathetic, and fully rounded creation of a character that, on paper at least, could have come across very irritating. Yet it is Eddie Marsan who deserves the greatest praise. Marsan delivers a virtuoso performance, full of self loathing and inherent anger. It is the conflict between these two juxtapositions that provide the movie with its strongest moments.

There has been plenty of talk about how this is a very 'Un-Leigh' type of film. Such comments are slightly misjudged and plenty of Mike Leigh's themes and stylings are evident here. However, the way Happy-Go-Lucky differs to many of Leigh's previous pictures is in its focus. This is not to suggest that the film is not constructed with any clarity of thought. Rather, Leigh's passionate and interesting Social-Political points are not as in your face so to speak, preferring to lie within the subtext of a character driven piece. There are a few moments when such concerns do surface and this is ultimately where Leigh and the movie are most effective.

As a whole, this is a well constructed and beautifully acted film. Yet is infuriatingly average at times, and lacks the real power of a Naked or a Secrets and Lies. Consequently Happy-Go-Lucky is not a classic of the Mike Leigh oeuvre.

2008-04-22T10:51:00.000-07:00

Monday 14th April 2008
Rec - (Spain)
Director - Juame Balaguero and Luis Bardejo
Cast - Manuela Velasco, Javier Botet, Manuel Bronchurd...

* * * * *

Spanish horror and fantasy is really flavour of the month at present. While Rec doesn't evolve or add anything new to this statement, it is an example of a solidly made genre piece.

Rec uses the same 'real footage' aesthetic that first rose to prominence in The Blair Witch Project and has been more recently reinvented in J.J Abrams Cloverfield and George A. Romero's The Diary of the Dead. The immediacy and plausibility of the footage works well in Rec (as apposed to Cloverfield), however it can at times become nauseating and more than a little frustrating. This is a major flaw that this type of shooting style needs to address and overcome.

Rec plays to its strengths though. All the action takes place in one setting, which creates great immediacy and dread, as well as enabling the narrative to progress quickly and anarchically.

Important for a horror film, Rec does have a number of scares. Although these are a little cliched, they are still executed to great effect. The movie is ultimately a faithful recreation of the feeling people may get from computer games such as House of the Dead or Resident Evil. Such a statement pre-empts the conclusion that Rec will not be everyone's cup of tea and is certainly not a must see. This should be filed under a 'Horror Fans Guilty Pleasure'.

2008-04-15T07:31:00.000-07:00

Monday 7th April

Son of Rambow - (UK)

Director - Garth Jennings

Cast - Bill Milner, Will Poulter, Jessica Stephenson...

* * * * *

Son of Rambow is a charming family film. One that is refreshing to see in this age of political correctness and over the top special effects. It is very much in the ilk of Stand by Me and The Goonies and attempts to show a childhood that is full of excitement, danger and companionship.

The two young outcasts, Bill Milner and Will Poulter respectively, who decide to make their own follow up to Stallone’s Rambo: First Blood are terrific. As is the style of the film, shot with inventiveness and a keen eye for detail by ‘Hammer and Tongs’ duo Garth Jennings and Nick Goldsmith. The film really takes off when the two youngsters are actually in the process of making the film. This is where Jennings can really focus on the idealism of childhood, the naivety and affirming way in which they can escape into their own magical world, leaving the troubles of the real world.

The real world, however, is where Son of Rambow struggles. The family dynamics are painted with very broad strokes and at times, the movie falls in to sentimentality. The ending in particular, feels a little trite.

That being said, this is fairly enjoyable stuff and it is great to see a family film that has its heart firmly in the right place.

2008-04-15T07:24:00.000-07:00

Monday 31st March

Funny Games US - (USA)

Director - Michael Haneke

Cast - Naomi Watts, Tim Roth, Michael Pitt...

* * * * *

Michael Haneke’s shot for shot remake of his German language original is an expertly constructed and gruelling cinematic experience.

Its comments on the presentation of violence in film are still as important today as they were back in 1997. Haneke, as with all of his work, handles the material in a clinical and methodical manner and creates images and moments that have more meaning than the entire film catalogue of some directors. His films are not always easy to watch and Funny Games is certainly no exception. It touches on fundamental fears and forces the audience to become self-reflexive in their viewing.

Despite such high brow concerns; at its base level, Funny Games is a gripping thriller. With economy and intensity, it will quite literally churn up your insides and scare you relentlessly.
Fundamentally however, you have to give yourself over to this film. It has a distinctive style and tone that your typical Hollywood audience would not be accustomed to. This in turn makes the re-make problematic. Funny Games’ 'intended' audience will be reluctant at best to sit through what is categorically an art house picture. As pointed out harshly by plenty of critics, Haneke is unfortunately preaching to the converted. Yet his ambitions and aims should not be lazily dismissed.

If Funny Games opens the eyes of just a small number of people who have endorsed the adolescence and banality of ‘torture porn’ films for instance, it would be a worthwhile exercise.

Even on its own merits. Funny Games is a technically brilliant movie and worth seeing for that reason alone.

2008-04-15T07:17:00.000-07:00

Monday 24th March

Lars and the Real Girl - (USA)

Director - Craig Gillespie

Cast - Ryan Gosling, Emily Mortimer, Paul Shneider...

* * * * *

Lars and the Real Girl is unbearably saccharine to even the sweetest of teeth. It gets so caught up in its own quirkiness that it actually forgets to say anything of any purpose.

This is a shame. Because at its essence, Craig Gillespie has a wonderful concept and potentially a great story to tell. He also has at his disposal a really good young actor in Ryan Gosling, who performs with great charm and depth. Emily Mortimer and Paul Schneider also give great performances as his brother and sister in law respectively. The rest of the supporting cast however, simply blend in to one happy, smiling whole; devoid of any real believability.

This is an American indie of the worst kind. One devoid of substance and merit. Lars and the Real Girl has very little to say on mental illness, relationships, masculinity or the role of woman. This is a film that looks good, but has very little going on between the ears.

Asides from this, there is very little else to say about this lightweight picture. What could have been this years Secretary or Happiness, will merely float away into the periphery.

2008-04-15T07:08:00.000-07:00

Monday 14th March 2008
The Orphanage (Spain)
Director - Juan Antonio Bayona
Cast - Belen Rueda, Fernando Cayo, Roger Princep...

* * * * *

A month ago this blog suggested that the horror genre might be dead. George A Romero’s The Diary of the Dead recently questioned this. The Orphanage however, has now blown this theory right out of the water.

The Orphanage is the scariest movie in over ten years. Directed skilfully by first timer Juan Antonio Bayona with great restraint, and with a knowledge of what truly gets underneath an audiences skin as apposed to the usual cheap and inconsequential shocks present in contemporary horror movies. The Orphanage taps in to feelings of loneliness, isolation and guilt and refuses to offer any easy answers, instead preferring to stalk us around every locked door and dark cave.

On the surface, The Orphanage is simply a genre piece, full of many of the tropes we have come to expect with a good horror yarn. Yet, the film manages to retain a freshness. This has a lot to do with the script by Sergio G. Sanchez. It has real depth. It picks at the scars of the Spanish Civil War and reveals that the wound is still bloody, and runs very deep. On a more individual level, it explores our own conscience and how we treat those needier than us. All in all, it is a very uncomfortable watch.

The Orphanage, like many of the great horrors from the past such as The Shinning and The Exorcist will stay with you for years to come; its images of terror will be burned on to your retina.

2008-03-14T04:22:00.000-07:00

Monday 10th March 2008

Diary Of The Dead - (USA)

Director - George A. Romero

Cast - Joshua Close, Michelle Morgan, Scott Wentworth

* * * * *

George A Romero’s new zombie movie Diary of the Dead is a shot in the arm that horror genre needed. While it is by no means a great film, and it doesn't quite hit the heights of either Night of the Living Dead or Dawn of the Dead, it is inventive, scary and humorous in parts. Crucially, unlike the majority of contemporary horror films, it also has a point; a message; a stance.

It is true to suggest that after the hype of his first two pictures, Romero consciously identified himself as a social commenter. This ultimately made his latter films a little clumsy and unsubtle in the way that they conveyed their message. The social-political metaphors were derived from both Night and Dawn by an intuitive viewer, rather than having it slapped across the face, as is often the case with his films nowadays.

This is a minor criticism though. Because Romero’s views are always interesting and they do make you think about societies ills, which is refreshing for a horror movie of late. In the Diary of the Dead’s case, the attack is very much aimed at the media; it’s representation of war, of violence, and of oppression. This in turn reveals a great deal about human nature and our own Darwinist desire to survive at all costs, even if that does mean destroying all those around us.

Such an apocalyptic vision is in keeping with cinemas overall tone of late. No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood are the two notable pictures that express similar pessimism. At 68, Romero has once again established himself as a horror master and in doing so, hopefully encouraged a new, younger crop of directors, to be equally as insightful and ambitious.

2008-03-03T08:12:00.000-08:00

3rd March 2008

Be Kind Rewind (USA)

Director - Michel Gondry

Cast - Jack Black, Mos Def, Danny Glover...

* * * * *

Michel Gondry is not a good screenwriter. Be Kind Rewind highlights this point in fifty foot neon signage. Never has there been a film so desperately in need of a plot, character development and just some overall coherence. Which is a shame, because at its essence (and despite all of its faults), Be Kind Rewind is a great idea and a lot of fun.

Be Kind Rewind does manage to capture a little of what makes mainstream cinema so appealing, and it is not necessarily the actual pictures themselves. Rather, it is our response to such films. The way we commune in our groups and descend upon the cinema as a social outing; the way we howl with laughter and recycle dodgy action movie quotes for ages after; the way we somehow identify with the characters and secretly wish we could perhaps be them for a brief moment.

These urges usually find an outlet through the process of re-enactment. With common people, this is typically via the means of a daydream. Yet there are some people who take a different approach, they pick up a camera and actually begin to make movies themselves. It is this act that beautifully encapsulates the charm and potential of cinema and it is where Gondry is at his best.

Gondry approaches the ‘sweding’ of Hollywood films with inventiveness and a DIY aesthetic that has come to signify him as a director. His approach is often whimsical and sentimental, but it is always honest and pure in spirit. Such a love of cinema makes it hard to really criticise him. Despite the fact that Gondry clearly needs to be reigned in a times, you can’t help but admire him.

Mos Def also deserves a mention. He performs charmingly in a role that at first seems to be second fiddle to Jack Black’s showy turn. Yet Def steals the show and ends up being the heart of the film, in the process confirming his status as an exciting young comedic actor.

Be Kind Rewind falls down on many levels, but always manages to pick itself back up with smile.

2008-03-03T04:57:00.000-08:00

25th February 2008
Rambo (USA)
Director - Sylvester Stallone
Cast - Sylvester Stallone, Julie Benz, Michael Marsden...

* * * * *

So far this year, as befitting awards season, audiences have been treated to a steady stream of interesting and enjoyable movies. We now go from the sublime to the ridiculous. The release of Rambo signals that award season is truly over with and we are entering the dire movie months of March and April.

Rambo has few redeeming features. The dialogue is laughable and is nothing more than a selection of meaningless sound bites. It is easy to add that the acting is truly atrocious too; however one would struggle to imagine that even Brando, Olivier, or Pacino could deliver those lines with any sort of dignity. The story is entirely unconvincing and the whole picture is so poor that it actually begins to become mildly entertaining. Very mildly mind you.

But it’s Rambo! Surely such snobbery is redundant. Rambo knows what it is and is not pretending to be any different. This is perhaps true, but still one can not defend the movie as being anything other than tired and turgid.

The most distressing aspect of this picture is that it begins with a horrific montage of real news footage from the conflict in Burma, an issue that is truly important. What follows however, is eighty minutes of boneheaded politics and scene’s that can only be described as morally reprehensible. Nothing meaningful can be derived from Rambo. Consequently the conflict in Burma has is yet again neglected. Paying money to watch this movie was an embarrassment.

2008-02-18T10:56:00.000-08:00

18th February 2008

The Diving Bell and The Butterfly (France)

Director - Julian Schnabel

Cast - Mathieu Almeric, Emmanuelle Seigner, Max Von Sydow...

* * * * *

Julian Schnabel has managed to create that most rare of things; a film that deals with tragedy and severe disability in an uplifting and life affirming way, as appose to with mawkishness dourness. This is largely due to the fact that Schnabel uses his artists eye to construct scenes which are full of colour, elegance, and original composition. John-Dominique Bauby, the protagonist with locked in syndrome, only able to communicate by the blinking of an eye, is constantly surrounded by beauty (no more apparent than with the glamorous nurses who aid him). This approach ultimately makes the film a sensual treat, ironic given the subject matter of the picture.

That being said, there are a number of scenes which are tough to view. The opening twenty minutes in particular, with Schnabel placing the viewer in the eye of Bauby, is especially uncomfortable. The conversations between Bauby and his father (Max Von Sydow) are with out a doubt, the most affecting moments of the movie.

Despite huge critical acclaim, it is too early to label Schnabel a great filmmaker. He has a tendency to revert to gimmicks (slow mo, focus changes etc..) and he uses the soundtrack to emotionally hit home the tone of his scenes a few times. A study of future works will highlight his directorial prowess more clearly.

Schnabel's approach does fit The Diving Bell and The Butterfly perfectly however and the movie is a must watch. Come the end of the year it will certainly be one of the years cinematic highlights. It is an incredible story that will make you think about the fragility of life and the power of the human spirit.

2008-02-11T08:11:00.000-08:00

11th February 2008
Juno – (USA)
Director – Jason Reitman
Cast – Ellen Page, Michael Cera, Jason Bateman…

* * * * *

Dysfunctional families, arch dialogue and quirky visuals and are a few of the traits that can be associated with the new batch of American Indies that have arrived over the past 10 years. The Royal Tennenbaums, The Squid and Whale and Little Miss Sunshine are shinning examples of this burgeoning genre. Juno is very much placed in this world and has a style that is instantly recognisable. However, Juno is perhaps the very best film in this tradition, because despite its deliberate mise-en-scene, it has incredible subtlety, fully formed characters instead of caricatures, and a lot of heart.

The acting is outstanding on all fronts. Ellen Page confirms her status as one of Hollywood’s best young actresses and Jason Bateman gives a fantastically ambiguous performance as the would-be-adoptive father. The script is getting all the kudos (and you can certainly see why) but the highest accolades’ should be awarded to the direction by Jason Reitman. The movie is directed with a great slight of hand. As the film progresses, the colourful visuals seem to blend into the background and the characters' emotions really come to the fore. The most memorable moments of the film are actually the human interactions. In particular, two climactic moments between Page and Michael Cera are handled note perfectly and as a consequence, really affect the audience. Reitman is fully deserving of his best director nomination at the Oscars, it is a pleasure to see someone rewarded in a genre that is often overlooked.

Juno ultimately has a lot to say about society, about class and about relationships. We are all flawed and life will never turn out how we imagined, yet if we open ourselves up to people and possibilities, and maintain a sense of humour along the way, a little bit of happiness can still be found.

The Death of the Horror Movie

2008-02-07T05:27:00.000-08:00

The horror movie is dead. It has had its throat slit not by the money hungry executives, but by us, the audience. Ponder at these US box office statistics for a moment. Alien v Predator (2004) grossed $80,281,096, Alien (1979) grossed $60,150,933. Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) took $80,148,261 while the 1974 original only took $30,859,00. Halloween (2007) $58,261,267; Halloween (1978) $47,000,000; Saw (2004) $55,153,403; Saw 4 (2007) $63,270,259. The regurgitation of a film seemingly guarantee’s a financial increase. Consequently, the news filtering through last week of a further bastardisation of a horror classic, A Nightmare on Elm Street, was not particularly shocking news at all. How can they justify yet another film in the franchise? How can they substitute acting for a bunch of scantily clad models screaming? How can they write a script by simply copying and pasting sections from the previous films together? It is Simple; we continue to give them the money to do it.

Upon its release, A Nightmare on Elm Street will almost certainly enter the US and UK box office within the top three. It will perhaps shoot straight in at number one. That is the justification they require. In January this year, the Coen brothers released a film that many cineastes thought to be the best American movie in years. No Country for Old Men was beaten to the top of the box office by Alien v Predator: Requiem, a film which left one critic declaring it is “a wrist-slittingly awful addition to the franchises. Surely they can’t fall much farther”. Don’t count against it. For a change to ever occur there needs to be a drastic re-education of the common film goer. Dissenters of such artistically lacklustre movies are currently a minority.

Film is arguably the most accessible, popular, and lucrative art form in the world at present. A medium that is indicative of our time. Yet it is commonly critiqued in a dismissive and snotty manner by those who believe more established art forms such as literature and painting are more worthy of our attention. The merits of each medium are open to debate, yet what is clear, is that this frivolous attitude towards cinema is breeding a generation of cinema goers who are lazy and inept at reading/understanding film. Subsequently, unwarranted and mindless films are becoming ever more frequent. The horror film, a genre with a long history of ideological and critical theory, is the first victim of this endemic. Is there a cure?

Firstly film theorists and film lovers need to stand tall and make sure their voice gets heard. They need to try and infiltrate every blog space, radio show and television programme, talking up our fantastic art form and promoting quality over banality, a duck du jour over a Big Mac. On a similar note, Ronald Bergan recently wrote a piece about French attitude towards film. In agreement with his argument, a more thorough programme of cinema analysis on our television screens is definitely needed in this country, as is a more positive implementation of film studies in our education system. Visual communication is a major factor in today’s society, and will continue to be long into the future. To study such a topic is not the same as studying ‘Mickey Mouse’. If such changes do occur, people may then begin to take a stand against lazy filmmaking, and refuse to part with their money so easily. Subsequently, executives will no longer have the finances to commission the likes of the Nightmare on Elm Street remake.

Perhaps this is just fanciful. But it is hard to seen any other way that the current situation will change. It is only a matter of time before all film falls the way of the horror genre. It is true to suggest that there has always been plenty of poorly made schlock around, that this is nothing particularly new. Yet in the midst of such movies, there was always a steady flow of original and entertaining cream that rose to the top. Such cream seems to have curdled of late.

Hopefully this pessimism is misjudged. After all, how many times have we got to the end of the horror film and thought the monster was dead…

2008-02-04T08:00:00.000-08:00

4th February 2008
In the Valley of Elah (USA)
Director - Paul Haggis
Cast - Tommy Lee Jones, Charlize Theron, Jason Patric...

* * * * *

In the Valley of Elah is a curiosity. The marketing, with its trailer on a seemingly constant repetition over the past couple of months, seemed to suggest a formulaic and overblown drama. An awards hungry movie directed by an Oscar winner and starring three fellow Oscar Winners. Such misconceptions were blown away when watching Paul Haggis’ superbly scripted film.

In the Valley of Elah is certainly not a flag waving slice of Americana. Rather it is an angry and painful account of one family’s loss. A personal insight into a tragedy, that allows for a deeper political meaning to seep through. It is a film that masquerade’s as a simple who-dun-it, but which is really about the destruction of a generation and one mans (a country’s) folly. It is certainly not a perfect film, some of the generic elements are a little tired, Charlize Theron performs admirably in what is an archetypal role. Yet it is honest, passionate and executed with surprising subtlety.

Tommy Lee Jones is outstanding and produces a performance worthy of the praise he has been receiving of late. Although he says very little, his face is so expressive. As the narrative progresses, you witness a gradual realisation fade across his weathered complexion. It is heartbreaking to watch. There is a particularly evocative moment when Lee Jones falsely begins a verbal attack on a Mexican born soldier. The soldier responds with a cutting question; “Wouldn’t it be funny if the devil looked like you?” Lee Jones spends the entire picture trying to pin down all those responsible for his son’s demise, yet ends up realising he could have easily found one such culprit, just by looking in the mirror.

2008-01-28T06:54:00.000-08:00

28th January 2008
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (USA)
Director - Tim Burton
Cast - Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Alan Rickman...

* * * * *

Blood Lust

When listing the characteristics of a musical; words like colourful, fun, extravagant and family friendly often spring to mind. You would not be surprised to learn, that Tim Burton’s interpretation of Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street is the antithesis of such descriptions. This proves to be Sweeney Todd’s major strength, and unfortunately its Achilles heel.

To begin with the positives first. Visually, as one expects with a Burton production, the film manages to astound you in its detail and transport you into another world with ease. The set pieces, from the cobbled back alleys of Fleet Street to Mrs Lovett’s insect ridden pie shop, are all immediately evocative. The sheer scope of the gothic design demands the audience’s attention. So do the performances from Burton Regulars Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter, and Burton new comers Ed Sanders, Alan Rickman and Timothy Spall. Each treads a nuanced line between caricature and heartfelt emotion. More impressive however, is the singing from the entire cast. Bonham Carter deserves special praise in particular for a fantastic portrayal of Mrs Lovett. Unusually for a musical, the 18 certificate also implies that the numerous death scenes are explicit; which they are. This is not to say that the violence is ill judged or gratuitous. Rather such scenes are original, hyper-stylised and great fun. Sweeney Todd is a unique vision and unlike any musical you would have seen before.

Yet, being a musical, there is an innate desire for that big show stopping number to arrive. It doesn’t. Steven Sondheim’s 1979 Broadway musical gained rave critical reviews at the time, but never achieved a prolonged run. This is perhaps down to the songs, none are especially memorable and they are all lyrically difficult. Consequently, the singing numbers in Sweeney Todd are brooding, maybe adding consistency to the style of the film, but lacking a real knockout quality that will grab an audience and leave them humming the tune out of the theatre. This may suit those who dislike the artificial and bombastic nature of your typical musical. However, after the ninth or tenth humdrum number, Sweeney Todd’s songs do begin to grate. This ultimately restricts Sweeney Todd becoming an entirely successful film,

That being said, Burton has created enough that is of interest here, to make for an enjoyable cinematic experience.

2008-01-21T02:22:00.000-08:00

21st January 2008
4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days (Romania)
Director – Christian Mungiu
Cast – Anamaria Marinca, Laura Vasiliu, Vlad Ivanov…

* * * * *

Reality Bites

4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days is a perfectly paced movie, carefully considered and executed by Christian Mungiu, and brilliantly photographed by Oleg Mutu. There is nothing flashy or obtrusive about the techniques used to tell this horrific story. This is Cinema Verite at its very best. There is a moment two thirds into the picture, when Otilia, after having aided her friend Gabriela in the start of an illegal abortion, leaves her in a hotel room alone and visits her boyfriend for a family birthday that she has previously promised to attend. It is a truly terrifying scene. A restrained and naturalistic performance by Anamaria Marinca, coupled with Mungiu's choice of the static shot, make for uncomfortable viewing. Otilia attempts to ring Gabriela twice, but gets no answer. A heady concoction of fear, helplessness and panic are emoted to the audience and Mungiu does not let us escape easily, letting the scene play out for a painfully long time. Once Otilia does manage to return to the room, she, and indeed us, are almost too afraid to even look through fear of what we might find lying on the bed.

This sums up 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days' major strength. Mungiu uses an intelligent grasp of film language to really make the audience experience one of life’s true horrors. This is not to say that the film is manipulative. Quite the contrary, it is an unbiased and unsentimental look at a very divisive issue. Mungiu simply tells it like it is, and this is ultimately hard to stomach.

Honest and gripping; 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days is an important piece of work.

2008-01-14T07:56:00.000-08:00

14th January 2008-
Charlie Wilson’s War (USA)
Director– Mike Nichols
Cast – Tom Hanks, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Julia Roberts…

* * * * *

The story of an alcoholic, skirt chasing US congressman, who instigated America’s biggest covert war operation by arming the Afghanistan’s as they fought against the Soviet army during the 1980’s, is undoubtedly a fantastic premise. The fact that it is an entirely true story makes it all the richer. And for the majority of the picture, Mike Nichols’ snappy direction and Aaron Sorkin’s tightly woven 90 minute script make for a fairly entertaining romp. It is a satirical look at a very serious issue. An issue played out particularly well by a cast that make use of their comedic talents. The accusation in certain critical circles that the film is miscast is a touch harsh.

However, it is the tone of the picture that unfortunately manages to confuse the audience. The films ideas become a little unclear, not to mention worrying. This is largely down to the fact that it leaves a lot of things unsaid (perhaps assuming the audience are already aware of what happened next) and does not paint a complete picture of events. Are we really to believe that America’s chief reason for this covert involvement was to help the poor Afghans? Perhaps more criminally, other than a 2minute aside at the end of the picture, the consequences of arming the mujahideen are simply glossed over. For many, fudging such political points will be the main detraction from an otherwise enjoyable picture.

Yet personally, this was the most interesting aspect of the movie. Highlighting the fact that however much America does try to look the other way, they still can not escape the white elephant that is sitting beside them.

Friday Night Review - 9th Nov

2007-11-05T00:35:00.000-08:00

Eastern Promises

* * * * *

While not as overt and accessible as A History of Violence, David Cronenberg’s latest picture Eastern Promises is just as compelling. While Eastern Promises touches on similar themes as A History of Violence; that of identity, family and the nature of violence itself. Its themes are expressed in a more ambiguous manner. This, in conjunction with a slightly sketchy plot, ultimately makes for a less successful movie. Despite this initial reaction however, there is more than enough intrigue and attention to detail present to make Eastern Promises a must see film. One whose meanings and merits will perhaps develop other time.

The acting is first rate, Viggo Mortensen again proves he is one of the great actors of his generation and Armin Mueller-Stahl’s performance is laced with menace. London is photographed in a fresh, moody manner and Cronenberg’s direction is typically thought provoking. The violence is handled note perfectly, the audience had an emotive reaction with every single moment of brutality. None more so than the climatic bathhouse scene which is not just a defining moment of the movie, but also a defining moment of this years cinematic achievements. One of the central concepts the film tackles is that of the human body as a tool. One to identify, to communicate, to deceive, to breed new life into this world, and to ultimately destroy. Perhaps our body is our greatest virtue, yet only too often is it used in a misguided and primitive capacity. Cronenberg is again showing us that more often than not, we are the architects of our own downfall.

"The talent is in the choices" - Robert De Niro

2007-09-17T14:19:00.000-07:00

Despite some directors, such as Hitchcock and Kubrick, merely viewing them as another cog on a very large wheel, actors are an integral part of the filmmaking process. There is nothing more disconcerting than a poor performance. Anyone who recently witnessed the implosion of John Turturro in Transfromers can testify to this. Turturro is not a bad actor though; in fact he is a very fine one indeed. He was just a casualty of the Bay/Bruckheimer massacre of 2007. Such an incident simply highlights the actors’ predicament - you are only as good as the material around you. Bad choices are inevitable. A few of these in a row however, and your reputation can quickly be in tatters and potential script offerings could dry up. Once great actors could be left mugging through scenes in Godsend and The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle.

Atonement opened recently and has been getting rave reviews. This has a lot to do with the exceptional performance of James McAvoy who manages to cement his reputation as Britain’s most exceptional young actor. His charismatic performances have been drawing comparisons with the early efforts of Ewan McGregor. McAvoy should view this as a compliment, McGregor’s early work emoted a fearless energy that was born out of a pursuit for naturalism. A nakedness that McAvoy has managed to recreate. Despite this acclaim, McAvoy should also see this comparison as a warning. McGregor’s current career could easily be McAvoy’s ten years down the line. An impressive looking bank account, but a lack of notable performances. Other than a terrific performance in David Mackenzie’s Young Adam, McGregor’s recent CV makes for poor reading. One can only assume that his decision making has become less shrewd over time. Embarisingly, a letter pened by McGregor to McAvoy was recently leaked to the press. Through the fear of legal precedings, I shall merely summarise:

Dear James

I have been heartened by your recent performances, ‘Atonement’ was fabulous darling, and ‘The Last King of Scotland’ was a real showcase of your talents. I fear that superstardom now beckons for you and it is with this assumption that I now pen this letter, offering what I hope to be friendly advice. After all, I wouldn’t want you to make the same mistakes I did.

If an overweight bearded gentleman pesters you to help him revive a classic franchise, just say no. Brando and Olivier would even struggle to deliver those lines he comes up with. Repeat the following sentence like a mantra. Hollywood rom-coms are a recipe for disaster.

Providing the vocals for an animation is not an entirely bad idea. However, providing the vocals for an animation not made by Pixar or Aardman is a bad idea. Always remember why you started acting in the first place, recall the buzz of what it’s like to challenge yourself. It is all about the work. You don’t have to keep continuously making films, you are in a privileged position to pick and choose your roles, please take that opportunity seriously.

And finally, there will of course come a time when Mr Bay knocks on your door. Politely decline whatever he offers you. When he returns with a sack full of money and a semi-naked Scarlet Johansson in toe, stand your ground and be firm, however difficult that may seem.

All the best in your future endeavours,

Ewan x

What's next for Wesley?

2007-08-01T10:07:00.000-07:00

You only have to watch 10 seconds of The Darjeeling Limited trailer before realising who is behind such a whimsical premise. The film is identifiably a Wes Anderson one. Quick panning movements; elaborate locations; a knowingly clever soundtrack; and the re-casting of Anderson darlings Shwarzerman and Wilson. The trailer is a reasuring invitation into a familiar world. It evokes memories of Anderson's previous films such as Rushmore and The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. Anderson has managed to carve out a nice little niche for himself within Hollywood. He uses fables in order to prod and poke the American psyche, examining the weird way we form and break relationships (especially within families). The Darjeeling Limited appears no different, it is the story of three brothers traveling accross India with the aim of reforging old bonds. The trailer is instantly appealing and will no doubt prove to be a succesful addition to the Anderson cannon. Yet should we be expecting more from him?

Do not misplace my concern. Anderson is one of the most talented directors currently working in America and my money shall be one of the first through the tills. However, familiarity breeds contempt. How long will the Anderson band wagon continue to roll on when he refuses to stretch his capabilities? In order to elevate himself from being just another talented helmer, Anderson must make a brave decision and try somthing a little different.

You may wish to argue that Anderson has a distinct style. An auteristic signature. To ask him to change his approach and techniques would be redundant. Kubrick frequently used a slow zoom, Hitchcock had a penchant for casting blondes and you would have never found Bergman's cast breaking into a song and dance routine. But technique is not the issue. Refusal to aknowledge Anderson as a great director is not on the grounds of a unique directorial style, of which it is clear he posseses, but in his failure to appropraite this to any genre other than comedy.

It takes an artists touch to place their individual stamp on a number of different genres and subject matters. Kubrick practically touched upon every genre in his career; Hitchcock has a classic literary adaptation to his name, as well as a seminal horror; and Bergman even tried his hand at comedy. This is not to suggest that if Anderson did try his hand at a horror movie let's say, he would ever be held in the same reagrds as those greats. He may simply be a one trick pony (a very good one admitadely) and atempting somthing different may backfire spectacularly. Numerous directors have crashed and burned when they decided to tip toe out of their comfort zones. But there should be no shame in this, the shame should be in not trying. After all, art is bulit upon risk.

It would be intriguing and exciting to see the Anderson touch on another genre, it's release would be hugely anticipated. Sadly, this does not look like happening any time soon. Instead, audiences and critics will probably go on to love The Darjeeling Limited for being typically 'Andersonian'. Yet will it resonate with them 15 or 20 years down the line? Probably not, that kind of attention is saved for the brave and ambitious filmmaker.

Big Boredom

2007-07-20T01:21:00.000-07:00

“The thing I hate about you, Rowntree, is the way you give Coca-Cola to your scum, and your best teddy bear to Oxfam, and expect us to lick your frigid fingers for the rest of your frigid life” (Mick Travis, If…, 1968)

If you were to ask a selection of your friends to state their political leanings, the majority would probably respond with liberal. It does sound good mind you. Favorable to reform; charitable; tolerant and open minded. Terms that are characteristic of this great democracy we live in.

Let's not fool ourselves though; we live in an apathetic culture masquerading as liberal. We are governed by a political party that preaches liberalism yet remains cemented to the centre ground. The age of celebrity has bred a generation of disengaged and idle abstainers, merely waiting for their next fix of Big Brother (itself a cultural and artistic term lost on them).

Equally lost is the presence of any real reactionaries within the film scene at present. Lindsay Anderson's If... was released at the end of the 1960's, a period of fervent and passionate change. Class, capitalism and post-war angst were key issues that angered Anderson. The iconic image of Malcolm McDowell defiantly leading an uprising against his authoritarians in If..., is a visceral visualisation of such anger.

If… can be seen as one of the final films of the 'British New Wave'. A picture heavily influenced by the films that preceded it, kitchen sink dramas such as Look Back in Anger and Saturday Night and Sunday Morning, and 'Free Cinema' such as Refuge England. All these films can be identified as revolutionary. They went against the grain of typical British films of the time in order to comment on the country that they lived in. They were deeply personal films that stood as a voice for a generation.

It’s a shame that the voice of our generation is deathly silent. The news is forever reminding us that we are living in an unstable time, one of religious discord and social breakdown. Yet British cinema seems relatively stale at present. Artistic freedoms seem swamped by conservatism. Ken Loach aside, there are not too many directors who are willing to confront these issues with any purpose or originality. No director seems willing to use the liberal beliefs that are apparently privileged to us, in order to comment or assess our country. Instead they prefer to collect the dollars that Batman Begins or Hot Fuzz brings in to them. Hopefully they will delve in to their pockets and spend some of the fortune on If... when it gets its DVD release on Monday. Maybe then they will understand just how powerful and provocative British cinema can be.

Summer Loving? Not So Much...

2007-07-04T02:41:00.000-07:00

The summer season is officially in full swing, and production company bores are left counting less pennies than they had been hoping for. Spiderman and Pirates aside, the summer big hitters have not been punching particularly hard. The Shrek, Die Hard, Oceans and Hostel sequels have all been lucrative, yet their drop off has been quick and their figures not especially obscene (Deadline Hollywood). The executives are left asking why. Let me offer a possible theory; perhaps audience’s are starting to get a strange sense of de-ja-vu when they look at the summer calendar. Another quest without any hint of character development from the ogre, yet more vacant smugness from Danny Ocean, another bad day for John ‘Yippee-Ki-yay, motherfucker’ McClane... It is all becoming strangely familiar, like we have paid our money to see these movies before. This is not simply sequel bashing. Terminator 2, Toy Story 2 and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade are all shinning examples of how Hollywood can get it right. Where these films succeeded, was in not merely bringing back what we loved from the first time around, but with crucially adding the key mixture of reinvention and originality. Put more simply, they had a new story to tell, not just money to make. It would be churlish to suggest that this years dip in blockbuster profit is the turning of a tide. All one can really hope for, is that the executives go back to the commissioning table and up their game a little. Unfortunately though, it is doubtful that turgid movies will ever decrease drastically from the summer season. For major changes to ever occur, it would need the boycotting of repetitive, formalistic and cynically greedy pictures all together. That would really make the suits sweat. But this is just wishful thinking. After all, the last time I checked there were still fat guys queuing up in McDonalds.

So where can the saving graces of this years American releases be found? In the hands of the old guard apparently. Early buzz suggests that there are returns to form for two of Hollywood's more elder statesmen, William Friedkin and Francis Ford Coppola. Neither director has really achieved commercial nor critical success since the 1980's. Yet early reports suggest Friedkin's high octane thriller, Bug, to be "like a young mans picture, filled with edge and energy" (Ebert). Meanwhile Coppola's return to filmmaking, after a ten year hiatus, has pricked a lot of peoples interest. Coppola himself has expressed his joy at finally returning to film a movie worthy of his talent, Youth Without Youth.

"I was so excited to discover, in this tale by Eliade, the key themes that I most hope to understand better: time, consciousness and the dream-like basis of reality. For me, it is indeed a return to the ambitions I had for work in cinema as a student"

Alongside the prospect of Cronenberg building upon the huge critical success of History Of Violence with his new feature Eastern Promises, it promises to be a fruitful year for vintage directors. American cinema can breathe a huge sigh of relief. You can always rely on your old man to bail you out of trouble....

Auteurism Anybody??

2007-05-22T04:22:00.000-07:00

In 1954 Francois Truffaut first engraved the word 'auteurism' on the landscape of cinema, and with it began a divisive debate. Can a film only reach high art status when it is a result of one person's unique vision? Yet further still, how can such a vision be implemented in such a collaborative medium?

Due largely to this inherent conflict, this writer has always held strong scepticism and ambivalence towards auteurism. The construction of film calls on several outside factors that are difficult for one figure to control. Performance, lighting, sound design and costume to name but a few. It seems frankly illogical to place artistic merit on the shoulders of one, when ignoring the efforts and passions of many.

However, the more one studies what are commonly regarded as 'The Great Films', the more difficult it becomes to dispute the notion of auteurism. When analysing a body of work, in comparison to just singular movies, you begin to discover unifying factors that encapsulate a director's beliefs. Factors that have survived the change around of hundreds of crew members, throughout a number of different pictures. Such reoccurrences in theme and style, support Truffaut's idealistic proclamation of a singular vision.

Perhaps there is a direct correlation between high end cinema and auteurism after all. Because for a film to be truly effective in what it is trying to say to an audience, and for it to stand above average cinematic fair. Every artistic element needs to be working in harmony. Every element needs to be executed with deliberate and thoughtful intent. Only one mind could conceivably orchestrate such a performance. The minds of many would surely only fog and confuse such a difficult task.

Conclusive evidence seems to lie within the short film form. Watch the earliest efforts of great contemporary directors and you can clearly see that the same preoccupations and techniques within these films, have gone on to embody all of their movies thereafter. Wheather working with a crew of 200 or a crew of 4, there voices speak with exactly the same clarity.

Exhibit A; Martin Scorsese's The Big Shave/Viet '67 (1967) is a case and point.

In Search of Contemporary Hero's

2007-05-03T16:27:00.000-07:00

Firstly; a confession. Due to slightly geeky tendencies, the following musing may be a little biased towards just how culturally significant the comic book movie actually is. That being said, with Spiderman 3 breaking box office records in Asia (and due to have a similar impact this weekend in the UK), it seems like an apt time to assess the importance of the spandex clad hero. 'Superheroes' have always been prevalent in the art scene. From oral poetry in Grecian times to the dour adventures of Sherlock Holmes, there has always been a narcissistic fascination towards such idyllic figures.

It is not surprising to learn that the popularity of the ‘superhero’ surfaces most amid times of turmoil and conflict. The golden age of the American comic book is widely acknowledged as the 40's and 50's, coinciding with the Second World War and its subsequent aftermath. Such a cultural correlation could be seen as symptomatic of our need to revert to the fantastical in times of hardship. Thus, during the 80's and 90's the comic book movie was never quite in vogue. Tim Burton momentarily resurrected the Batman franchise for a period, only for it to be bastardised in to a camp charade by Joel Shumacher. It was not until 2001 that the fortune of the comic book movie changed.

2001 is a year that has now become synonymous with words and phrases such as al-Qeada and weapons of mass destruction, a year when world concerns were drastically altered. 2001 is also the year that Bryan Singer's X-Men was busy achieving a cult status on DVD. Singer’s X-Men hit a distinctive chord with audiences. What followed was an avalanche of comic book films. Another two X-Men films, 3 Spiderman films, The Hulk, The Fantastic Four, Daredevil, Ghost Rider, the reinvention of both the Batman and Superman franchises to name but a few. And with the new Fantastic Four, Batman, Hulk, Transformers and Iron Man films imminent, such over-saturation seems unrelenting. 2000 and beyond can certainly be regarded as a new golden era for the genre.

It can be strongly argued that such a sudden influx of comic book films is simply due to the fact that major studio's are cashing in on the sheer advancement in digital/special effects technology over recent years. A return to the ‘Cinema of Attractions’ so to speak. But a closer analysis does highlight a distinct tonal difference between this new era of comic book movie, and the ones that preceded them.

Earnest and mature are perhaps words to set this current crop of movies apart from earlier efforts. Gone is Wolverine’s garish yellow outfit, only to be replaced by a black leather one. Even Superman’s vibrant colours have been severely muted in his most recent outing. It all reek’s of seriousness. This is further emphasised by the way in which comic book metaphors are becoming less and less subtle. One of the central images to last years Superman, was that of our hero rescuing a falling aeroplane. The political wrangling in X-Men can be seen to evoke the contemporary debate on immigration, and it is notable that all the villains within this genre use violence as a method to pursue their goals, a notion otherwise known as terrorism. There is a clear targeting of adult issues. It is as if we are constantly being reminded that these films are about our struggles and about our lives, as if they provide some sort of medicinal and morale boosting purpose. “With great power, comes great responsibility” screams the mantra. Perhaps this is all just a little over dramatic, after all this is a phrase rarely heard around the offices of Bush and Blair. Is it simply ludicrous to believe the comic book movie has any cultural relevance?

Critics argue that comic book movies are simply a vacuous and commercial response to societies ills, that they do nothing more than detract audience attention away from more pressing issues. Simply popcorn fair that takes away the screen time from more high brow, culturally significant films. Merely escapism masquerading as serious polemic. While this may be partly true, one should not underestimate the importance of escapism in a healthy culture. To take a more romantic view, can escapism not be viewed as a social necessity too? After all, it is nothing more than a longing for change, a hope for something different. And without hope, dreams and ambitions can never be forged.

Haneke Playing A Funny Game

2007-04-20T00:38:00.000-07:00

"My films are intended as polemical statements against the American 'barrel down' cinema and its disempowerment of the spectator"

These are the words of Michael Haneke, the Austrian auteur who has made a string of confrontational and aesthetically challenging European pictures. Such a robust statement makes it all the more strange to learn of this provocateurs new feature, a journey into the placid waters of Hollywood to remake his 1997 film, Funny Games.

Leaving aside the fact that Haneke is remaking his own picture, which immediately raises concerns over complacency and the pursuit of the 'Yankee Dollar'. What is more alarming about this decision is that Haneke's work to date has been the antithesis of Hollywood classicism. Haneke is pungent blue Stilton in comparison to Hollywood's smooth chalk. Haneke deliberately structures his films to confront the audience, causing us to question our own social ideologies. He achieves this through a number of techniques that include a lack of intrusive soundtrack, voyeuristic composition, and a fearless disregard for inflicting prolonged moments of realism upon his audience. All of which are alien to modern American cinema. In fact, such techniques could be interpreted by the unaccustomed American eye, as being a touch boring.

Boredom is Hollywood taboo. It is not just a word that sends Harvey Weinstein and his like, running for another helicopter to blow up, but it is also a concept that the contemporary 'indie' movement consciously steer away from. A glance at the films born out of this years 'Sundance Film Festival' will highlight this fact. They may differ in tone and subject matter to the average Hollywood blockbuster, yet they are classically structured in exactly the same way. Shot, reverse shot. A refusal to break the 180" rule, and edited in a way that satisfies the viewer in space and time. Haneke's movies in contrast, are not afraid to confront such formal conventions.

It is this juxtaposition that will make it intriguing to note the audience reaction upon Funny Games' release. It is worth acknowledging that Haneke's films to date, have become steadily more successful without him ever having to sacrifice his unique style. Haneke's most recent movie Hidden played for over 2 Months in the UK and grossed over £900,000, making it one of the best performing foreign pictures of the year, celebrated by both audiences and critics. Crucially though, this audience was predominately made up of the alternative crowd and was a commercial success as far as art house cinema is concerned. Targeting the multiplexes could be more difficult. Will Haneke have to alter his approach to satisfy the money men at Warner Bros? Such a major production company would surely be looking for economic assurances from it's director. It is precisely this dynamic that makes Haneke's move to Hollywood peculiar, especially considering that he was achieving an artistic and relative commercial success by working in Europe. So surely Haneke knows something we don't.

With such overwhelming factors against Haneke's gamble, one could conclude that he must have something up his sleeve. His approach to filmmaking is shrewd and calculating and this decision may be a deliberate and intelligent provocation of mainstream cinema. If Funny Games sticks to the original script, then it will be a vicious attack on the media's presentation of violence. How apt then that he is choosing to remake Funny Games in Hollywood, where on screen violence is frequently embellished and romanticised. After being such a fierce critic of Hollywood, it could be seen as strangely logical that he would take his unique vision to America in order to expose the questionable ideologies' of their films. If you agree with this perspective, possibly Haneke will penetrate American cinema in the same way that he has startled European audiences after all.

This is all just hopeful conjecture though. You can never be entirely sure how a European director will fair in the land of 'Mickey'. We will just have to wait until Funny Games is released in December to debate weather Haneke flourishes or flounders. However, one thing that such a debate does illuminate, is how there is still a polarisation between Hollywood and European cinema. Which is a shame, because there was a time when alternative American cinema promised so much. During the early nineties and the growth of the independent circuit in particular, there was a moment when we thought American cinema was going to challenge movie goers with a daring originality not seen since the 1970's. Sadly, such optimism seems to have evaporated of late. Right up Grindhouse's self referential ass no doubt.