Antichrist Review

Bruno/Antichrist. 

Perhaps the strangest double-bill you could ever expect to see at a cinema, and not one I would recommend for the faint-hearted or the easily offended. But this unusual combination of movies is how I spent my Friday night. Both films will make you squirm whilst watching through your fingers, and both feature scenes where the protagonists stare up at the stars.

"Look at all the stars up there. It makes you think of all the hot guys out there doesn't it?"

Bruno to three hunting rednecks.

"Those constellations aren't even real"

Willem Dafoe. Fuck knows what he's going on about.

I'll not say much about Bruno because chances are by the time you read this you'll have already seen it, or at least will be planning to. I'll just say that I was massively disappointed with Bruno in comparison to Borat, it was too contrived, too sleight, and they pretty much ruined it by putting all the best bits in the trailers. Don't get me wrong, it's funny, I was just expecting another gut-buster like Borat, when in fact it was just an uncomfortable watch 80% of the time.

The real reason for writing my first blog in months, however, is the film Antichrist which I saw at a midnight premiere last night in soho. 

When Lars Von Trier's Antichrist was premiered at the Cannes Film Festival back in May it was greeted with boos and jeers along with a smattering of applause and quickly became the most controversial film of programme. Variety called it a "big fat art-film fart" and film critic Jeff Wells said it was "easily one of the biggest debacles in Cannes Film Festival history and the complete meltdown of a major film artist". With explicit sexual scenes, instances of extreme violence and lashings of gore, it seemed the film was polarising its audience into those who hated in, and those who thought it was an exhilarating ride. Empire's Kim Newman said "Antichrist delivers enough beauty, terror and wonder to qualify as the strangest and most original horror movie of the year."

With all this in mind, when I was offered the chance to see the film for myself I naturally jumped at the chance. Upon leaving the cinema I was literally dumbstruck, unable to put into words exactly how or what I thought about the film, but with a nights sleep between me and the movie, I feel about ready to talk about one of the most traumatic visits to the cinema i've ever had.

In hindsight i've decided that I like the movie, but I didn't enjoy it, and I certainly wouldn't recommend it anyone. But how can that be? I liked it, but don't go see it? I think i'd say go see it but put in a clause to say if it seriously disturbs you, then it's not my fault!

The film opens with a prologue shot in stunning slow motion black and white. It shows a couple (Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg) who lose their baby when it falls from the bedroom window whilst the couple are getting jiggy in bed. Its a beautifully shot sequence, set to a soaring orchestral piece and sets the film up concisely. The mother suffers unbearable grief and is hospitalised for a month. The husband, a therapist, decides to care for his partner, and takes the couple to their woodland retreat named "Eden" a place the mother has confessed as being the location of her greatest fears.

The early scenes at Eden are where the film is at its best. The isolated woodland, creeping nature and dense shifting greenery evoking a creepiness similar to The Shining, but unfortunately the scenes of the bickering couple tend to drag the pace of the film in this vital middle section. A rotting fox announces "Chaos Reigns" and so begins the final and most gruelling part of the film. 

Up to this point of the film, we have seen explicit intercourse, dying babies and talking foxes, but nothing can prepare you for where the film goes next. In an extended period of explicit violence and abuse you are shown things you wish you hadn't, including Dafoe ejaculating blood, an innovative goring method performed on Dafoe's shin, a bird having its brain bashed in and then the final piece de resistance; DIY surgery performed on Gainsbourg's lady regions with a pair of rusty scissors. It's all sickening stuff, and comes completely out of leftfield. 

Not quite an art film, far too gruesome. Not quite a gorno, too arty. Not quite a religious allegory, too wishy washy. So what it is about?

It's about grief, pain, relationships, sex and violence. It seems, at times, misogynistic with Gainsbourg's character taking the brunt of the blame for pretty much everything that happens in the picture, but coming from Von Trier, this could have been expected.

Most of all, this film is about pushing boundaries. Exploring the darkest reaches of the psyche, and if Von Trier had exercised a bit more restraint, we could have been looking at a spiritual successor to The Shining. However, in its current state, Antichrist should be regarded as a curio. A film you should see, but not one that i'll recommend you see.

The cinematography and sound design are truly beautiful throughout, and there are parts of the film which are just stunning and you think it might just work out, but then there are vast swathes of the middle section which are just simply boring. Dafoe puts in a stoic performance, and Gainsbourg does her best with her underwritten part, but it is the violence and imagery that will stay with you, rather than the actor's turns.

The script was written by Lars Von Trier following a two-year depression, and you can tell. It's an exhausting watch, but in my opinion, an exhilarating one too. Though I don't think i'll go see it again.

Verdict ?/5

One of the most memorable and thrilling cinema-going experiences in a long time, but mentally-scarring and shocking all the same. Go see it, or don't, i'm still not sure.

Watchmen - Review

This March sees the long-awaited release of Watchmen, directed by Zack Snyder (Dawn of the Dead, 300). Adapted from the classic comic book series first released in 1986-87, Watchmen has had a long and painful gestation from page to screen with Terry Gilliam, Paul Greengrass and Darren Aronofsky all attached to direct at some point, before the project finally got the greenlight at Warner Bros with Zack Snyder attached following the huge success of 300, another comic adaptation.

The original series that came out on DC comics, written by comic book royalty Alan Moore and illustrated by Dave Gibbons, was regarded as an instant classic upon release and is often named amongst the greatest comics ever written for it’s deconstruction of the superhero concept. The story is set in the USA in an alternate 1985 where Richard Nixon has just been re-elected for a third term, and the country is edging ever closer to a nuclear war with Russia. America has the advantage, with the only real superhero, the blue-skinned Dr. Manhattan on their payroll. Costumed heroes have been outlawed; ex-capes are dead, retired, insane or working for the government. When one of the government funded heroes is brutally murdered, the ex-heroes, formally known as the Minutemen, suspect that someone is out to take them down, so begin to investigate the killing with Rorschach, a hard-boiled Travis Bickle-esque, detective leading the way.



Alan Moore is famously protective of his work after the disastrous adaptation of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and distanced himself from Hollywood for the big-screen versions of From Hell and V for Vendetta, and has similarly distanced himself from this version of Watchmen saying:

'Watchmen' film sounds like more regurgitated worms. I for one am sick of worms. Can't we get something else? Perhaps some takeout? Even Chinese worms would be a nice change."

If you’ve ever read League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and then seen the film version, which stars an extremely pissed-off looking Sean Connery, then you could understand Moore’s disappointment, but Watchmen director Zack Snyder is a confirmed fanboy of the book, so surely the adaptation is in safe hands? Upon hearing the new that Snyder was attached to helm, fanboys were up in arms, how could an adaptation of such levity be trusted to a director renowned for his frenetic direction (Dawn of the Dead) and frankly homo-erotic stylings (300)?

The film has been the subject of the level of hype reserved only for the big comic book films a la The Dark Knight, with set videos, photos, clips and trailers surfacing online for nearly a year now, but now then time has come, does the film live up to the hype?

I was lucky enough to bag a ticket to the first British Imax screening, so as a confirmed fan of the comic, we sat and waited, and when the huge Imax screen filled with bright-yellow, I took a deep breath. The time had come.

At a weighty 157 minutes, the film never suffers for lack of pace, with Snyder clearly looking to cram in as much detail from the book as possible, the time flies by. He is clearly a big fan of the book, and many scenes occur with lines delivered verbatim, and framing lifted straight from the cells of the book. But herein lies the problem. If you are a fan of the book, you love it for what it is, a beautifully crafted, weighty, intelligent piece of cold-war paranoia, an insight into the superhero psyche, with incredibly realised interaction between the characters, and their place in the grand scheme of the world. Can that really be translated into a popcorn movie? Probably not, so how do you adapt it? Snyder has taken a slavishly reverent approach to the source material, and it shows, but for any non-fans, what is the point? It comes across as a futile exercise in animating the comic, which has already been done to great effect for the Watchmen website. For a fan such as myself, yes, it was great to see how Dr. Manhattan was going to be done, but for anyone else, will they care? Dr. Manhattan is one of the films triumphs, with CGI proving to be most effective in close up, his ethereal other-worldliness comes through in every scene (thanks to a decent turn from Billy Crudup), but having his knob out and on show in nearly every scene that he is in is a bit distracting, especially in Imax, as you can imagine. Which leads me to another gripe about the film. The film is being released as an 18 certificate, making it the first comic book film truly for adults. The book is a violent, bloody and explicit piece of work, but in the context of many comics, it’s fairly tame, so pushing for an 18 rating seems very strange, and every moment that necessitates the rating seemed forced to me. It’s like Snyder felt he had to crowbar torture-porn-esque moments, full frontal nudity and explicit gore in order to give the film some sort of credibility, where with a few choice cuts and trims, the film could have easily have been PG13 or 15. You just don’t need to see Dr. Manhattan in all his glory in every scene he’s in.



Jackie Earle Haley and Patrick Wilson as Rorschach and Nite Owl are well realised with Rorschach brimming with menace and rage in every scene, particularly the prison break. Matthew Goode is ok as the Lets Dance-era Bowie styled Ozymandias, but he feels underused. Malin Akerman is cute as the Silk Spectre, but comes across a bit soap opera at times, as does Carla Gugino as her mother, who has to battle her way under a ton of crappy ageing prosthetics for most of the movie. The poor make-up is one of the many things that unfortunately, despite it’s rumoured $120m budget, makes the film seem cheaply made and far from epic. Richard Nixon keeps popping up to bang home the imminent threat of nuclear war, but unfortunately for the poor actor, the cinema broke out in guffaws every time he appeared, because of the incredibly naff looking prosthetic nose and chin, and visible skull cap that made him look like an character from one of Eddie Murphy’s recent dire outings. The prison break scene appears to occur in an anonymous mid- sized corridor, and Bubastis (a genetically engineered purple lynx for the uninitiated) looked like the “Walking With Dinosaurs” team had animated it.

Somewhere the budget had clearly been invested was in the soundtrack. The film is set in 1985, which you would think would have been rich picking for the soundtrack, but somehow Snyder cocks that up too. Obvious choice (Ride of the Valkyrie for Vietnem), followed by stupid choice (99 Red Balloons), followed by groan-inducing choice (Hallelujah for the sex-scene, which was bad enough in itself without this massive cliché blaring over the top), Snyder maybe thought he was making a feature length music video?

The ending has been changed from the book, but for me it worked. Somehow I think a giant squid would probably have got bigger laughs than Nixon nob-nose. But in the grand scheme of the film, it seemed to fit, even if you never really felt the epic sense of conclusion that the book has.

That said, the film is an entertaining and well paced, glossy piece of work, but as a fan of the book ultimately disappointing. It’s a catch 22 with such a seminal work though. I feel this hagiographic approach to the source is too much, and Snyder is clearly trying to impress the fans, but a looser approach may have worked better. However, take it too far from the book, and fans would be up in arms at the liberties being taken. It’s catch-22 and may prove to have been a pointless exercise if it flops at the box-office.

3/5

A bloody, brutal and adult comic-book adaptation that may confound and beguile fans and non-fans in equal measures.

Reviews - Slumdog Millionaire, My Bloody Valentine 3D and The Wrestler

Movie Crazy

Now that term has broken up and all the essays are done, it's time to sit back and relax... Or in my case, watch as many bloody movies as I can cram in as possible. This time of year is great for films, as all the big Oscar-friendly movies get released, meaning we have a slew of huge credible films hitting the multiplexes. So first up was Danny Boyle's latest...

Slumdog Millionaire



There has been such a fanfare of critical praise for SM, that it seems like the film could never possibly live up to the hype. SM tells the story of a young man, Jamal, a slumdweller in Mumbai, who defys the odds to get to the very last question on the hindi version of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire. Made for a meagre budget on location in India, SM is a huge change of direction for director Boyle following his last film, the creepy sci-fi epic Sunshine, but Boyle has never been one to stick to one genre as his previous films have shown (Shallow Grave, Trainspotting, Life Less Ordinary, 28 Days Later etc). So how does is foray into fairytale bollywood-esque film-making fare?

I liked the film, I really did, but for me it never transcended from being a well made and pleasant to watch film, into a great piece of cinema. True, it's beautifully shot, and features some great performances from the young actors portraying the heroes in their youths, but for me, it was a little cliched, with an air of inevitability about the whole thing. True, the film is meant to play as a Dicken-esque, rags to riches, modern fairytale, but Boyles vision of Mumbai, although he doesn't pull any punches on the grime of day to day life, never feels fully authentic. Plus, the great turns from the younger versions of Jamal threaten to outshine Dev Patel (of Skins fame), who frankly comes across as a bit wooden, god knows why he's nominated for a Bafta, lets just hope he's not up for an Oscar too.

Worth seeing for the feel-good factor, but don't expect anything truly breathtaking.

3/5


My Bloody Valentine 3D



My only venture into 3D films previous to this was a crappy VHS of some Nightmare on Elm Street sequel which had some pretty ropey 3D sequences which you viewed with those old-skool cardboard red & blue glasses, to pretty dismal effect. The red & blue meant you viewed the sequences in a weird off-colour hue, and the 3D itself was pretty basic. But...let me tell you now. After seeing MBV3D I am converted...

3D IS THE FUTURE OF FILM!

The 3D in this film is so breathtaking, I literally couldn't believe my eyes. The technology is there now. Yes, you still have to wear stupid specs in the cinema, but gone are the red & blue in place of polarised lenses, which mean there is now colour degradation, you view the film just as you would a normal film, but its in 3D! To be honest, being a horror, it can come across as a bit gimicky in places, but even outside of the obviously done-for-effect shots, the 3D is just incredible, bringing the action on screen to life in a way i'd never seen before. Honestly there is no reason why, in the future, that all films should be released in 3D. It just seems to me just a totally natural progression. Good news then that Pixar has announced all it's future films will be released in 3D (as well as re-releasing Toy Story 1 & 2 in glorious 3D), meaning i'm even more hyped for Up than before. You need to experience this new 3D now, trust me, it blew my mind.

The film itself is fairly standard US-slasher fodder, never really that scary, full of cliches and ropey acting, but it is played fairly tongue-in-cheek, so you can forgive that for the most part. The gore is great (if you like that sort of thing), with numerous inventive murders throughout (the spade one my personal favourite, tied with the jawbone one), and they really push for the 18 rating, with plenty of swearing, explicit nudity and gut-churning violence. Stupid mindless fun. But make sure you catch it in 3D...

Bloody, guts, gore, nudity and violence all in incredible 3D.

4/5 (or 2/5 in 2D)


The Wrestler



Another serious critic-friendly award-hungry picture, this time starring Mickey Rourke as a washed up pro-wrestler, Marisa Tomei as a washed up stripper, and Evan Rachel Wood as the wrestlers long-suffering daughter. Directed by Darren Aronofsky (who also directed one of my least favourite films ever, Requiem For A Dream, but I won't hold that against him), The Wrestler tells the sad tale of fictional wrestler Randy "The Ram" Robinson, who was massively popular in the 1980s, but who still wrestles to pay the bills, despite his aging frame crying out for him to stop.



All the hype to this film has been surrounding Mickey Rourke and his performance, in a role which seems absolutely perfectly fitted for him, the washed-up has-been out to prove everyone wrong. And Rourke's performance doesn't disappoint, he looks terrific in the movie, a beaten up hulking wreck of a man, and he hits all the right emotional notes. Kudos too though to Tomei, who also looks fantastic (she does spend half the film in half-naked stripper mode), but carries off the stripper with a heart with convincing results. Evan Rachel Wood feels slightly underused, but holds own in her scenes with Rourke, which have visible chemistry. The film itself doesn't pull any punches, nor does it patronise the 'Sports Entertainment" world of pro-wrestling, which in the UK (and maybe USA I couldn't comment), has always been one to prompt sniggering amongst the masses, but still has a huge fanbase all around the world. The fight scenes are graphic and brutal, with the hardcore fight being so wince-inducing, you almost don't want to watch. The whole world of these pro-wrestlers is laid bare for all to see, with all the hair-dying, fake-tanning, egotistic posturing, illegal drugs and constant pain these guys live with all there on the big screen.

For all that, I did enjoy the movie, although it was a tough watch, there are moments of touching light humour and pathos that lift the film from it's essentially B-movie basing, into something a lot more affecting. That said, I don't think it's a 5 star movie, and that is simply because, without Rourke and his personal history that are now attached to the film, making The Wrestler his 'comeback movie', this film would never have been anything more than an interesting curio of a sports film, that itvery bravely, nearly transcends.

Tough, brutal and affecting movie, shot well, with a great cast. But still just a movie about wrestling...

4/5


DVDs

[rec]

5/5 Quite simply the BEST horror film I have seen in ages. A spanish Blair Witch style, shot on handheld camera zombie movie, which has more scares than your average horror fare. SEEK THIS OUT!

Zack & Miri Make A Porno

3/5 Kevin Smith's latest is crude and funny in equal measure. Just a shame about the ending, bit too obvious Kevin. Worth watching though to hear the concept of The Dutch Rudder.

United 93

5/5 Vital 9/11 film. A heartbreaking recreation of the events on the hijacked United Airlines flight 93. Well worth seeing.

Defiance Review

Defiance is set in Belarus in 1941 and tells the incredible story of the Bielski brothers. The invading Nazi Germans are hunting down Jews throughout Eastern Europe, and thousands of innocents are being slaughtered daily. The three Bielski brothers slip through the net, and seek refuge in the dense surrounding forests. They create a hidden community amongst the trees and hope to avenge the deaths of their families and friends by saving many more in the forests.



The movie is directed by Ed Zwick (The Last Samurai, Blood Diamond), and stars Daniel Craig (007) as the eldest brother and leader of the Bielski Otriad, Tuvia Bielski, Liev Schreiber (The Machurian Candidate, X-Men Origins) as the tough middle brother Zus, and Jamie Bell (Billy Elliot, Jumper) as the youngest brother Asael.

There is clearly an incredible true story at the heart of this movie, as the closing titles inform us, the Bielski camp eventually numbered 1200 when the war ended, and the two eldest brother eventually lived in New York, but never sought any recognition for their incredible achievement. But unfortunately this incredible story gets muddled along the way. Zwick is clearly an adept action director, indeed the action scenes in Defiance are thrilling, but when it comes to the human story, he does have a tendency to lay it on thick. There are so many moments of broad humour, cliched character types, and incredibly awkward dialogue throughout ("Jews don't kill" "Well these Jews do"), you could almost hear the collective eye-rolling in the screening.

Daniel Craig asserts his leading man status, with his piercing blue eyes shining through the mud, he brings depth to a role which feels underwritten, and could potentially have come ended up very unsympathetic in someone elses hands. Liev Schreiber puts in a convincing action-man type performance, but didn't leave much of an impression otherwise. Jamie Bell probably makes the most out of his slender role, building on it, and growing with the film, his rousing speech in the final third feels genuine and heartfelt, and gives older brother Tuvia the boost that he needs to pull through.

Overall, the film makes a fairly decent action romp, but due to it's sensitive subject nature, and the fact that this is a true story, it feels like it perhaps may have been better suited to a director more interested in the human element, than the action side. I just got the feeling that if it had been MY story that they were telling, i'd have been disappointed. WW2 and the holocaust are rich source of material of material for film-makers, and this is perhaps one of the most inspiring unheard stories yet, but it can be done with subtlety, and this just shows you how not to do it.

2/5

Despite the glossy production, thrilling action and decent performances, this is no more than an average war movie. Not the inspirational gut-churner it should have been.

2008? That's soooo last year....

It's been so long since my last blog, I almost feel like someone who has skived work, but not just once, for a few days, and i'm not sure whether i'm actually welcome back or not. But since it's a New Year, then I should start as I mean to go on. I started this last year as an exercise to get more writing done, and it has opened up so many possibilities to me that I fell that only good things can come from continuing with it.

But what to write about for the New Year. Well i'm rolling with the cliches here and chipping in with my top films of 2008, and with some films to look out for in 2009. My top films of 2008 are by no means an exhaustive list, because frankly, I haven't seen every film that came out, of course, i'm no lucky film journo with tickets to all the screenings. No, if i've seen a film, i've paid good money for it, which makes my opinion just as worthy to be heard (yeah right, big head....whatever, here it is, you don't have to read it anyway).

Number 5 - Cloverfield



It's just a big dumb monster movie if you have to sum it up. With 2-D Gap models for the main characters to boot. So what made it one of the films of the year? Well, anticipation for the film was ratcheted up to boiling point before its release by one of the cleverest viral marketing campaigns yet (that's before The Dark Knight came along and stole its thunder), and when something is hyped so much, there is always the risk that you'll be let down. But for once, Cloverfield delivered. From start to finish, the action never let up, and had the right mix of scares, shocks, 'whatthehell' moments along with stunning special effects, and all filmed in Blair-Witch patented shaky-cam. It was just a moment of 'damn, why didn't I think of that" for me. Well executed, not bloated, succint, and no messing around. Like I said... It's just a big dumb monster movie. Just don't bother with a sequel guys. Oh and if you didn't see it at the cinema, then don't expect the home viewing experience to live up to the big screen. Unless you have a kick-ass home system.

Number 4 - The Dark Knight



If you read back over my blog, you may find a slight obsession with this movie, so you may be surprised to hear it didn't make number one on the list. But in hindsight, my mind flags up all the problems I had when watching the film, rather than it's plus points, so for this reason, it makes number four. What else is there to say about TDK that hasn't been said. The movie has made damned near $1billion making it the fourth highest grossing film EVER, and is set to be re-released in the States for a pre-Oscar push, and probably to see if they can't scrape in a few more pennies for Warners. I just hope to god that it's still playing this year at the IMAX because I need to see it there. The film has to be seen for Heath Ledgers whirlwind performance as the Joker. Lets just see if he gets a posthumous nod at the Academy Awards, it seems like the mawkish sort of thing they would do, but I still wouldn't bet on it.

Number 3 - Let The Right One In



This is a bit of a cheat, as this hasn't been released over here yet. But it's a swedish vampire film, part horror, part sweet coming-of-age drama. Filmed in a snow covered perma-frost suburb somewhere in Sweden (i'm not even sure if it is set now, or the 1970/80s due to the strange Swedish fashions on show), a new family moves into local flats, and the hero 12 year old bullied Oskar sets out to befriend his new female neighbour 12 year old (or so it seems) Eli. A sweet natured friendship/romance develops, but Eli is a vampire. Anyway, I won't spoil it for you, but I for one will be queuing up to see this at the cinema when it comes out proper over here (April according to imdb and Empire). It has great performances, stunning cinematography, and the right mix of heartwarming and bloodchilling moments to make this a cult classic. (Apparently Matt Reeves the director of Cloverfield has been signed for a US remake, which has no chance of bettering this version, but we'll see)

Number 2 - In Bruges



I missed this at the cinema, and wrote about it in an earlier blog. This film has stuck with me since I watched it on DVD, and has been my recommendation to anyone looking to rent a DVD whenever they asked me. It is just SO funny, and so unexpected for me. I had pretty much written off any movie starring Colin Farrell after seeing The Recruit (a godawful CIA/FBI trainee gone wrong balls with Pacino) and Phone Booth. I liked him in Minority Report and even Miami Vice, but had just gone off him massively. Over-rated. Until I saw this. But the film doesn't just belong to Farrell, as it features superb turns from Brendan Gleeson, Ralph Fiennes and Jordan Prentice as the most deranged dwarf/midget/little person EVER. If you haven't seen this, seek it out. You won't be disappointed.

Number 1 - There Will Be Blood



Released in 2007 in the States, this was released around the same time as other 2008 classics Juno, The Diving Bell and The Butterfly and No Country For Old Men, which I saw all of on the big screen, but this is the one that has stuck with me the longest, I recently re-watched it on DVD where it did lose some of its power, but still retained the vim and vigour of Daniel Day- Lewis' barn-storming turn as Oil-magnate Daniel Plainview. Plainview, as the films anti-hero, limps through this film with so much passion, rage and sneaky greed, by the time the films comes to it's shocking conclusion, you just wish he would get his comeuppance. Plainview is this years monster of choice for me, which up against the Joker and the Cloverfield beasty is saying something. A deserved Oscar win for Day-Lewis. This filmed is many faceted, deeply textured with layers and layers that bears up to repeat viewings that belie its near 3 hour running time. Time flies when you're wincing through the Oil. PT Anderson is one of the most interesting directors working today in my opinion and can't wait to see what he does next.


So that's 2008 wrapped up. Special mentions for the ones that nearly made the list -

Wall-E

Frost/Nixon (not out until this year anyway)

and

Juno

And the worst films? I wouldn't be that cruel...

Cough***INDY 4***Cough


Two-Thousand-And-Nine

So big films to look out for this year, and remember, i'm a sucker for hype so there's no guarantee these will be any good, but i'm looking forward to anyway...

Crank 2 : High Voltage

What can I say, I heart the Stath. And this trailer is about the stupidest thing i've ever seen.



Kick-Ass

This is a big-screen adaptation of one of the sickest comics i've ever read. It's just a shame it's got bloody Nic Cage in it. Set in a realistic world, a kid decides to take the law into his own hands and turn himself into a hero straight out of his beloved comic books. Looks pretty good.





The official website has gone live here but as yet there's nothing on it, but if it's as good as the comic you are in for a violent treat.

Public Enemies

The new film Michael Mann starring Christian Bale and Johnny Depp, enough said? Check out images of the prohibition era crime epic here.

Star Trek

JJ Abrams (Lost) Trek reboot looks amazing. Can't wait. Never been excited about a Trek film before, and I hope that they show Lucas how not to fuck up an important sci-fi franchise.



Terminator 4

T3 was pants, but Christian Bale is in this. McG don't fuck this up. Check out the huge Terminators. Very cool.



Up

Ok, i'm slightly obsessed with Pixar after treating myself to the box-set for Christmas. So I am suitably excited about Up, though not sure what to expect.



Oh, and because I love it watch this...Presto, the Pixar short from Wall-E. So inventive, so funny.



The Watchmen

Anticipation for this in geek-dom is already at fever pitch. But not long now guys. If you've not read the comic, then now is the time to get up to speed. And if you've never read a comic in your life, this is a good place to start. Just hope the film isn't shit.



So until next time folks...

Quantum Of Solace Review

Something Of Boris



Last night I was lucky enough to wangle a ticket to the exclusive worldwide first screening of the new James Bond film, Quantum Of Solace. Regular readers may recall my current obsession with Ian Fleming and Bond, so to get to see the film before it's general release was a genuine thrill for me, and i'm obscenely grateful to the people who enabled this to happen, you know who you are.

Set literally minutes after Casino Royale ended, the movie opens with it's usual pre-credit action sequence, but for post-Casino Royale Bond there's no jolly jape sliding down the Millennium Dome for Daniel Craig, instead we have a hard as nails car chase, with some great stunts, so realistic and pacily edited , that you almost feel each scrape and bang as the cars rattle down a mountain at full pelt. We discover Bond has had the shady Mr White captive in the boot of his car for the whole chase and Bond dutifully delivers the beaten and bleeding baddie into the arms of M, played with prim authority (as usual) by Dame Judi Dench, who aims to extract information from their captive, by whatever means necessary. We are then treated to a damp squib, of the usually iconic, title sequence, which seems half baked and underdone, which is a shame following Casino Royales great playing card suit inspired effort.



Back into the film, we learn more of the shady Smersh/Spectre-esque organisation that White belongs to, Quantum. They have, as seen in the trailer "people everywhere" including the upper echelons of MI6, and said "people" appear to spring their trap and free White. A chase ensues through the streets of Italy, and up until then I had been fairly happy with what i'd seen so far (apart from the titles), but then we are treated to a Bourne-alike chase through the city streets and rooftops. I know Bournes stunt co-ordinator, Dan Bradley, was hired to bring bigger bangs and action set pieces to Bond, but the whole sequence, (and many more to come throughout the film) just seemed to be a Bourne pastiche. I know the Bourne franchise paved the way for the new gritty realistic Bond for the 21st century, but to ape the film series to such a shameless level (roof top chase? check, tough fist fights in small enclosed apartment? check, motorbikes chase? check, have we missed anything? oh yeah jumping from building to building via windows? check) that brings absolutely nothing new to our screens, seems a sad, desperate act, for a long lived, and much loved franchise like Bond. Bond films should have action sequences that bring something new to the screen, not just a reheating of a old idea.



The plot then whistles along at great pace, hardly taking the time to explain why Bond heads for Haiti, then Austria, then Italy then England, then Columbia, and god knows where else. With a great screen writer like Paul Haggis, you'd have expected something a little more coherent from the plotting and story, but half the time, you're left scratching your head, with important dialogue being muttered at a barely audible level, in a barely understandable accent. Bond visits MI6 for some reason or another, and for some reason, the makers have decided that 21st century MI6 needs futuristic touch screen video displays a la Minority Report, which comes across as a pointless special effects exercise, where a simple old fashioned film & photo would have done the trick. Maybe they should stick their video screens in the invisible car, and make it disappear?

That said, despite the unfathomable plot (something to do with a ambitious villain masquerading as an eco-lobbyist, a political coup in southern America and a water shortage?), Daniel Craig is convincing as the cold hearted killer spy, but the writers have made the mistake of having Bond learn to love, and forgive. Bond does conflicted well in the books, but it's much harder to translate onto the screen. Eon should take heed from Seinfelds mantra 'No Lessons, No Hugs'. It's just not Bond.



Mathieu Almaric, so great in The Diving Bell And The Butterfly, brings a sleazy and creepy presence to his character, eco-shyster Dominic Greene, but he feels underused, and he never comes across as a great Bond-Baddie. We want cruel heartless killers, but he never seems to do anything too cruel, he just... talks about them? He has a henchman with comedy hairpiece fresh from Jim Carreys Dumb and Dumber trailer, but again, he never really comes across as menacing, or even that tough. I'm no fan of Jaws, but at least he appeared slightly scary. The henchman here just comes across as comic relief, not the personal bodyguard of the mastermind of a criminal empire.





The Bond girls are good though. The stunning Olga Kurylenko plays a conflicted and damaged Camille, who is also after Greene but for different reasons, and she forms an alliance with Bond once she realises they are both after the same thing. She is gorgeous and a great choice for a Bond girl. The equally stunning Gemma Arterton plays Agent Fields, a low ranking member of the Secret Service dispatched to bring Bond in once he's turned rogue. But this being Bond, she doesn't get much further than the bedroom, before Bond dispatches her with suave charm. Its a shame that it's such a slender role, as she brings innocent spunk and charm to a potentially throwaway Bond girl.





Judi Dench is great as usual, and her scenes with Daniel Craig are great. Her stern school matron M, is the perfect counterpoint to Craigs cocky self assured loose cannon, and their encounters bristle with electricity. Mathis returns, and its a welcome return, although he doesn't last long before he is brutally dispatched. Like Greene says "everything that Bond touches has a habit of withering and dying'.

There are some nice nods to the Bond legacy. His business card reads Universal Imports (fans of the books will get that one). Felix Leiter gets embroiled in the plot somehow, but he feels a little shoe-horned in. In Haiti we get a truck of coffins go by referencing Live and Let Die. So some nice touches for Bond fans.

Some of the the action set pieces are great, especially the plane dog fight, even though its resolution is a slightly creaky implausible climax. The film builds up great momentum, but ultimately the films climax sort of comes and goes with a fizzle rather than a bang. The plot feels like its leading to some big reveal that never comes. The villains demise (without spoiling too much) is rather lame and dissatisfying. And Bond learns to forgive and forget. And thats about it.


So in conclusion...

Its a disappointment of a movie i'm afraid after the brave new grounds broken in Casino Royale. Not as good as Casino Royale or Goldeneye, but definitely better than later Brosnan efforts. I'd like to see them take Bond to somewhere new next time, it doesn't need to be a continuation, thats the beauty of the franchise. Pitch him against an uber-villain, mano e mano, like Goldfinger or Scaramanga, lets have a battle of wits, not Bourne-lite.

3/5

Back To School, Raindance, & Wispa

Back To School





So... after five long, hard, broke summer months i'm finally back to uni. The second year. The year where your grades get counted towards your final result. Scary stuff. But it's good to be back for sure. Good to see your coursemates, find out what they've been up to, good to find out about your modules, and what is expected, just nice to be back. So, as usual, we have four modules this semester which all finish after we get back from the Christmas break, so even now it seems like we're running out of time. We have two theory based snore-fest modules; "Cultural History Methods & Perspectives" and "Ethics In The Media" which appear to have very tenuous links to Film & Broadcast Production, but what the hell... they say we have to do them, so i'm damn well going to give them a good go. But they are both very boring to talk about so we'll just skim right by those, to talk about the other more practical modules.

"Radio Production" is fairly self-explanatory, for our assessment we have to create a five-minute radio news feature based around a topical subject. My groups project is based around recapping the year 2008 in terms of cinema, and how it has performed, can it be classed as a vintage year? The piece has to include 5 separate recorded interviews with notable sources, and the better the source, the better the grade. So I took it upon myself to aim fairly high, and email BBC Radio 1's resident film critic James King, to see if he would participate in an interview for us. And he said yes! Which is a great boost to the project overall, and I hope we can gain a few more decent interviews for the project. As with a lot of modules, this particular one involves group work, which the mere mention of is enough to give anyone who has ever had to do group work in a university environment, an instant headache and nightmare simultaneously. There are advantages in some cases because you get to chose your group if you're lucky, and therefore can expect particular standards of work from everyone, plus you may get to work with someone you've always wanted to work with. On the flipside, if you don't know enough people in your particular class group, you can pick a nucleus of reliable friends, but you always get lumbered with someone, who for their own reasons don't have a group to work with (they were late, a newcomer to the course, they don't know anyone, they're just weird and everyone has avoided them, or worse...all of the above). And guess what, its happened to us again, after last years crazy Brazillian girl incident (text messages about nosebleeds, incomprehensible stories about penguins, regular no-shows and general crazy weirdness) I didn't think things could get much worse, but they have, but I won't be naming and shaming here, let's just say I don't expect much from our late newcomer. The problem with group work, is you all have to work together and pull in the same direction to get anything cohesive and worthy done, so when one member doesn't think on the same wavelength, or doesn't pull their weight, you have to put in extra effort, all with the annoying and frustrating knowledge that they will get the same result as you, which won't realistically reflect their input. Grrrrr annoying.

"Fiction Production" is the other practical module, and again does pretty much exactly what is says on the tin. We have to produce a five minute short film on an original idea/script, which is very exciting, as we've never worked with actors before in a real sense, on a proper project. It's also exciting, because despite being a group work module again, this time, our group is a team of film-makers in which we all get on, we all want to work with each other, and we're all genuinely excited about the project itself. Its a short comedy piece about two rival housemates who are competing with each other to get out of the house on time for work, and who will go to increasingly ridiculous lengths to out do the other (If anyone wants to read the script, let me know & i'll email it). So we are developing this as we speak, rewriting the script, scouting for locations, researching music and looking for actors. All very exciting stuff. I'll keep a tabs on this project as it moves along. It's called Pistols At Dawn, and we hope to have it finished by the end of the year.


Raindance Film Festival



As Rotten Tomatoes was a sponsor of Raindance (A UK film festival for independent films), I was very gratefully given a festival pass, giving me access to all the screenings for nothing. Unluckily I wasn't able to use it to it's full potential, but I was able to get to a couple of events. On the Saturday night I went to an evening event with Corey Feldman doing a Q&A session with clips from a few of his films. This was really good, and Corey Feldman comes across as a genuinely nice guy, possibly a little disco-damaged from his hedonistic heyday, but still a nice guy (even if he does dye his hair). He was a chatty guest offering up funny anecdotes about Gremlins, The Goonies, Lost Boys, Stand By Me etc, so I was pleased that I managed to go. A little disappointed that I didn't pluck up the courage for a photograph, or to get my DVD signed, but still a good night. Later on that evening I got to see the film that Corey was in for the festival, called The Birthday. Which to be kind, is a strange little, spanish made, but english language curio of a film. Its not had a major release, and only been seen at a spanish film festival before, and probably for a good reason. It has some nice ideas, and the last ten minutes are pretty spectacular, but its incoherent, incomprehensible and down right weird (but not in a good way) for the rest of the time. That said, I met the director Eugenio Mira, who was a lovely guy, so I won't slate the film, let's just say the guy has potential for the future.





For the closing gala night there was a screening of a new British movie called Hush. Having little prior knowledge before the film started was quite a nice experience, and the movie itself, although riddled with plot-holes, and lacking in the plausability stakes, is an effective little British thriller. Not giving too much away, the story centres on the main character, who driving along a motorway late at night with his girlfriend, spots a captive woman tied up in the back of a lorry, as it cuts them up on a turn off. A cat and mouse pursuit then ensues, and the film is beautifully shot, with decent acting turns from most involved. Its worth checking out when it hits the big screen, and marks the director Mark Tonderai as a name for the future.


Wispa Bars



Just as a small side note, in case you hadn't noticed, the classic Cadburys chocolate bar Wispa is back. Why they ever stopped making these is beyond me, and I have been totally addicted, probably having one every day for the last two weeks. A friend of mine insists that the Aero is a superior chocolate bar because of it's bigger bubbles. I put it to you that this is wrong. They ROCK.

Bring back Wispa gold next please Mr. Cadburys.



'Til Next Time....