Frank Stiles Shame Reviews

Reviews still coming

2011-10-10T08:19:00.000-07:00

Without home internet, many films I would have liked to have reviewed have now passed me by... it's going to be a big review round-up.

Film Review: Senna

2011-07-06T05:12:00.000-07:00

(Directed by Asif Kapadia, running time 102 minutes)

Ayrton Senna (left) and Ron Dennis (right).

For those of you lacking in the general knowledge of Formula One racing, one thing that always needs to be emphasized is just how dangerous it can be. The amount of real science and physical and mental effort, not to mention the skill it takes to not only win but avoid a serious injury or worse is part of the back bone of the race. Throughout the late 80s and early 90, a Brazilian driver named Ayrton Senna took the worldwide competition by storm. During this time he quickly raced his way through not only each Grand Pix as they came but also all the behind the scenes turmoil and politics that comes with most multi-million pound events, and become three time Formula One world champion and national hero is his native homeland. Despite being at the top of his game he was tragically killed in crash during San Marino Grand Prix in 1994.

However unlike many documentaries that may feel the need to dwell on one’s passing, director Asif Kapadia has adopting a style of film making that instead not only takes the audience back to Senna’s heyday of racing but makes us feel as if we were there, experiencing everything as it unfolded. The entirety of film is made of real footage including official races, interviews, behind the scenes of each events, public appearances and even home movies all the while narrated by a substantial variety of figures ranging from managers, fellow drivers and newscasters who were not only experienced these events first hands but even knew the man himself well. No cutaways, no stationary studios interviews, not even shots of what anything looks like today, just footage of the time and place.

The thrill of victory.

At first this approach may appear to be a series of dull stock footage, yet Kapadia has carefully filtered through what must be hours upon hours of footage in order to get down to the core and for it results in a gripping viewing experience that I wouldn’t say is on par with the most tense and dramatic fictional films as it’s a wholly different kind of experience and no doubt will be for many, even better. With this footage the audience can get a close enough picture of the inner workings of Formula One. Senna might have been a top F1 driver, but to make it there it appeared to take plenty of effort beyond just winning races. Even though he raced with McLaren, we quickly became at odds with his fellow McLaren driver the French Alain Prost, also a multiple F1 world champion, which at one point turned into a bitter rivalry. On top of this Senna was very vocal about some of the rules and on and off track issues, in many instances crashing and in another even being disqualified temporally suspended.

Yet even though is may seem this is a documentary made for the Formula One fan, beyond just the structure of the inner workings of the motor-sport we are given an insight to the man himself and those around him, often at times making footage seem almost character driven that while at odds with many, there is still underlying respect. However those who may wonder about his personal life, either due to a directorial decision, lack of footage or out of respect, little is actually known about the man off the track, with the documentary kick starting just as he enters Formula One. On hand this may seem limiting to those less enthusiastic about the motor-sport while on the other hand it doesn’t get bogged down with such details that may make the film appear a little too overly done at times, not being as if its trying to hard make the audience care. Off the track though, the film doesn’t skim on the crisis in Brazil, something that was very important about his public image, that in times of need is what helped make him seem like a beacon of hope in Brazil, in order to show others just why those in the F1 and elsewhere considered him an important figure outside of just being good at his passion. The documentary doesn’t paint him as some messiah, instead just how and why this man had become so popular. The narration itself is accompanied with a brief small subtitle as each give their story. The variety of the narration is what gives the tone legs, in that the contrasting view points allow a little more balance in what is at the end of the day a tribute as well.

With great success comes great risk.

Senna was deeply religious but also very much aware of the dangers. In fact, even though there hasn’t been a race related death since 1994, Kapadia also felt the need to portray this by not holding back with footage of other incidents such as Rubens Barrichello literally flying into the sidelines. Despite these occasional harrowing instances, they make the film more real than it already is. In regards to his aforementioned death behind the wheel, it actually (and in all honesty thankfully) doesn’t dwell on it as up to this point the film has been about his life as a racer and anything else might have seemed almost unnecessarily tarnishing. While we do get visuals on the brutal crash and finally his (elaborate) funeral, it is cut up with shots of each of those who attended and them with the man himself. Its pretty emotional stuff.

Without going overly sentimental and getting distracted by the personal details, this may seem less inviting to those other than F1 fans. However I feel Kapadia has not made this case by selecting and structuring the footage and narration that makes Senna inviting yet ultimately compelling. Some may not know much about the man himself, but this documentary does its best to do just that. As for F1 fans, its a no brainer as what we have here is a slice of motor sport history, one that I feel is a great viewing experience for all.

With narration from Ron Denis, Frank Williams, Alain Prost and many others.

Self-aware pre-review note

2011-07-06T05:03:00.000-07:00

Traditionally when reviewing a film, I would take the chance to shoe-horn random lines of half-assed attempts at humor for a pathetic attempt at individuality. However the vast majority of cinema releases appear to warrant such an approach when often at times even those with a sense of Oscar-bait around them usually trip into the typical special effects laden pitfall. If they won’t take themselves seriously, I fail to see the need to attempt to exposit like I’m up for a Pulitzer Prize. Yet when you find yourself with the task of reviewing a documentary, one that is not only involves a tragic event but is entirely made of real life raw footage... well, to put it into context, I would have to begin writing an apology now.

So before I shift the tone dramatically, to lighten the mood to the more regular entries I’ll just leave you with a picture of a chimpanzee on a bike.

Credibility.

Film Review Roundup: May-June

2011-07-05T11:44:00.000-07:00

CASUAL NOTE: Busy work hindered any attempts to write up reviews for March and April. However is was somewhat barren anyway. Long story short of those that I saw:

True Grit = Instant western classic, Jeff Bridges always shines.
Source Code = Pretty dam good sci-fi with an unusual approach to science.
Adjustment Bureau = Great concept and well done but nothing special.
Rango = Brilliantly animated and with great characters even with a formulaic story.

------------------------------

Insidious

(Directed by James Wan, running time 100 minutes)

Apparently it will take more than just a "boo" to scare Patrick
Wilson in Insidious.

The “usually” reliable Patrick Wilson and Rose Byrne play a couple of parents who are terrorized from house to house by an unknown apparition. Despite an incredibly stereotypical vintage haunted house meets possessed child premise that has been in bed with film more times than an even more incredibly stereotypical sexual metaphor, a number of well placed heart pounding jump scares and an overall eerily constructed sense of atmosphere gives Insidious a far more legitimate claim to being a “horror” film than most of the poorly scripted torture porn that seems to have fancied itself as such... even if it turns out that the manifestation of evil looks like a cross between Freddy Krueger and Darth Maul.

Also staring Ty Simpkins, Lin Shaye and Angus Sampson.

Hanna

(Directed by Joe Wright, running time 111 minutes)

Saoirse Ronan takes a moment to mentally take in the fact she's in
an action film in Hanna.

Action adventure fresh from the United States... and United Kingdom... also Germany, this multicultural ride stars Saoirse Ronan as a teenage super agent “Hanna” trained since birth in secret by a CIA veteran played by Eric Bana, both of which quickly become independently on the run from agency forces led by Cate Blanchett. The national production mixture does lend itself to an entirely unique approach to the action genre to more than just the fact the deadly assassin is a young girl. It’s rather inconsistent style is both its saving grace and downfall at times where on one hand the film can be dark but seedy, action packed but erratic and well scripted but fast to leave plot points and characters. While far from perfect, overall Hanna is definitely one of the most intriguing films of its type, although at times you might even question just what that type of film is.

Also staring Tom Hollander, Jason Flemyng and Olivia Williams.

Kung Fu Panda 2

(Directed by Jennifer Yuh Nelson, running time 91 minutes)

Jack Black's Po and co (hey that rhymes!) in Kung Fu Panda 2.

Jack Black returns as the voice actor for one of his more likable characters Po the panda in one of Dreamworks’ more enjoyable series. Even though Po has already become a kung fu master, another lesson must be learned, this time finally tackling the issue of his origins that seem to tangle with a current hostile take over of China by a malevolent Peacock voiced by the delightfully over the top Gary Oldman. It’s all harmless fun with simple yet effective gags and some downright beautiful art design and set pieces. This time however Dustin Hoffman’s (in all honesty in-depth) Master Shifu takes a backseat to the less interesting Tigress voiced by Angelina Jolie as the supporting role and the effectively integrated Chinese philosophy of the original has been significantly lessened to make way for more action. Regardless, this is one of those few animated sequels that doesn’t drop the ball.

Plus Jean-Claude Van Dam voices a crocodile.

Also staring David Cross, Seth Rogen and Jackie Chan.

X-Men: First Class

(Directed by Matthew Vaughn, running time 132 minutes)

Michael Fassbender finally has the (star)power in X-Men: First Class.

Following the abysmal X-Men Origins: Wolverine, the X-Men film franchise appeared close to the brink. Director Matthew Vaughn of Kick-Ass fame saves it from going under with what feels more like a reboot than a prequel. With a fresh young cast, First Class goes to the young adult years of Charles Xavier (Professor X) and Erik Lensherr (Magneto) played by James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender respectfully, both being interesting, complex and wholly likable portrayals of the classic Marvel characters. While the side characters may not share the same level of character development, they all do their parts justice with a more three-dimensional Mystique played by Jennifer Lawrence and an effective villian of Sebastian Shaw played by the reliable Kevin Bacon as he attempts to kick start World War Three. With a fresh story-arc and more real drama, First Class is a truly well crafted superhero adventure.

Also staring Rose Bryne, Nicolas Hoult and Oliver Platt.

Bridesmaids

(Directed by Paul Feig, running time 125 minutes)

Kristen Wiig (far right) is now in charge of the hens in
Bridesmaids.

Yes that's right, I took a gamble.

Co-writer and lead star Kristen Wiig plays a down on her luck single women who is given the role of maid of honor when her best friend played by Maya Rudolph becomes engaged. What follows is a series of hectic and often at times futile attempts at preparation and pre-parties with the other bridemaids who are either desperate or socially suffocated, along with a "best friend" competition with another good friend to the bride to be played by Rose Bryne. There's plenty of unconventional antics on display including some toilet humor more akin to the male-orientated side of group comedy like The Hangover. While this is definitely not a generalization, due to the heavy female cast, there's also plenty of drama and romance thrown in for good measure including a series of "romantic" encounters between the lead actress and Chris O'Dowd IE Roy from The IT Crowd. Even though I will admit the script does occasionally drift beyond one's own personal tastes at times with the heavy handed dramatic moments, many instances seem to be immediately be remedied with some well timed comedy. Most likely better suited for the ladies.

Also staring Melissa McCarthy, Ellie Kemper and Wendi McLendon-Covey.

BY THE WAY has anyone noticed that Rose Byrne has appeared in THREE of these films?

Film Review: Thor

2011-04-25T16:42:00.000-07:00

(Directed by Kenneth Branagh, running time 112 minutes)

NOTE: At time of writing, Thor is timetabled for the 27th April in the UK. I however was fortunate to catch an advance screening.

Anthony Hopkins (right) asks Chris Hemsworth (left) if they'll still be taken seriously in these costumes in Thor.

Back when the first Iron Man film came out, the post-credits teaser implicating the prospect of a full feature Avengers movie was nothing short of a geek’s exciment-induced heart attack. To be fair, even those outside of the realms of comic book geekdom, the prospect of witnessing a multi-million dollar budget epic of a super genius billionaire in a mech suit, a colossal monster so powered by rage that shooting him only pisses him off, an honor bound super soldier who single handedly won World War Two and the immortal Viking God of Thunder, all under the organization of a world wide military powerhouse lead by “mother fucking” Samuel L. Jackson... *breathe* should raise at least moderate to high interest from anyone.

The only folly of outing such a feat of film making so early would be the sheer weight of expectations from anything else connected and driving towards it. Case in point was Iron Man 2. While a perfectly well-done action adventure movie experience that gave us all the super-powered set-pieces and crazy yet likable characterization, at the end of the day one could not shake the feeling you were instead watching a mere Avengers prequel... or worse yet a feature length advertisement. While audiences still wait over Captain America’s first [legitimate] push on the big screen, here and now we have Thor.

From from the start however, unlike Iron Man 2, Thor is a near self contained story. The viking Gods are actually superbeings from another world who have protected mankind in the past. The “God” of thunder Thor played by a very buff Chris Hemsworth and heir to the throne of Asgard held by Odin played by the always classic Anthony Hopkins, is one the path to rule until his supposed arrogant war hunger against their ancient long foes the Frost Giants results in his exile to, surprise surprise planet Earth. After being scooped up by Jane Foster played by a now Oscar touting Natalie Portman, Thor attempts to regain his powers, all the while his brother Loki played by Tom Hiddleston secretly attempts to seize the throne for himself.

You know you've got it made when you have a throne of gold.

What I find perplexing however is while the above is more or less accurate summery of the narrative, one third of the film dramatically leads up to his fall from Asgard, complete with sweeping showcases of it’s beautiful world and set-piece battles between our hero and the monstrous Frost Giants. It’s all impressing stuff that really gives you a feel for this hyper-fantasy version of the old Norse tales. It’s actually surprising just how much of this element was left out of marketing just given how much imagination and creative effort went into bringing this city of gods to life. Perhaps they didn’t want to spoil anything but the history of cinema would disagree with that theory. Because of this it makes his harsh new situation on our humble little rock all the more underwhelming in comparison. It’s almost jarring when in one scene you witness a golden hall of super-vikings brandish their magnificent armory before flying to battle through the cosmos then cutting back to Stellan Skarsgard downing bottles of cheap booze in a shack bar. It’s as if the film is trying to one up itself, the lesser of the two being the real character drama.

Despite some personal reservations upon first viewing the trailer complete with questionable attempts at anger and sorrow, the acting, for the most part is serviceable at least. While some attempts at humor fall flat and the romantic sub-plot is forgettable in the grand scheme of things, such issues thankfully don’t distract from the real sense of purpose. In fact the entire drama can best be summarized as a family-matter... an epic one if that. Returning to my previous point of the jarring scenes, same can also be said about the characterization. For example, along for the ride in Thor’s adventure are Sif and the Warriors Three, a group of heroes who on the surface make up the archetypes of warriors. The lady Sif (Jaimie Alexander) is more of a valkyrie, Volstagg (Ray Stevenson) the large viking, Fandral (Joshua Dallas) the swashbuckler and Hogun (Tadanobu Asano) the mongol. These characters receive enough screen time to display their character traits, dialogue and exposition that at one point I actually found myself rather wanting to instead watch a feature length film about them. In fact, it’s only after they themselves come to Earth does the setting become relevant... that and a giant magical automaton that decimates a small town. On top of this, the character of Loki is one of the more interesting villains in the super hero world. While far from the best (you can’t touch the Joker), much of his motivation is fueled by a classic case of being in the shadow of Thor, the second son, the odd one out, all being a nice change change up from the usual “because I’m evil”, even if it does border on such initially.

We've all been there Thor, usually when opening tight jars though...

As you’ve probably picked up on, the narrative in terms of setting simply doesn’t know where it wants to stay. And here’s my theory why: even though it’s a self contained story, the link to Earth was mandatory in order for Thor to properly link in with, you guessed it; the upcoming Avengers film. Yet, even with this burden, the narrative is fairly coherent and does host some believable and likable characters... and even though the costume design is near fitting with the original comic book incarnations, that would be saying something. Further more unlike Iron Man 2, besides the heavy presence of S.H.I.E.L.D., the references to a wider Marvel universe are kept to a minimum, but what pandering we do get does still intrigue. Besides one mildly humorous moment in which one agent remarks over whether the giant automaton is one of Stark’s creations, the audience is actually subtly, if unknowingly introduced to another member of the upcoming Avengers; Hawkeye played by the excellent Jeremy Renner of the Hurt Locker fame. And yes there is a post-credit teaser, yet I doubt it would make much sense to a non-Marvel affiliated person such as myself.

Even without knowledge of the house of Stan Lee (with an obligatory cameo of course), Thor definitely holds up next to it’s current super hero siblings with enough well-crafted fantasy and classic Marvel wit to hold more than the attention of the uninitiated, while also being able to construct a real narrative around all the visuals and action, a proud enough feat. For those who are however affiliated however, you’re probably going to get even more excited for the future.

Also starring Colm Feore, Idris Elba and Kat Dennings.

FYI, this film didn't have much to compete with from my previous experiences with Thor.

WARNING - So bad, it's good:

Film Review: Sucker Punch

2011-04-01T17:15:00.000-07:00

(Directed by Zack Snyder, running time 120 minutes.)

Emily Browning leads the Xbox Live party into wave 3 in Sucker Punch.

Films that divide audiences are a common occurrence, films that divide critics come just as often. Film that divide critics and audiences however are something of an oddity. While they’re usually directed at films the “general public” relish while the “professional critics” loathe, most of the time they’re films like Twilight, simple minded, one note cash-ins that are devoid of any substance while manipulating the younger generation with cliched bull... but I digress. But other times one could feel it is in fact the critics who might have the narrow-minded impression. Case in point is Sucker Punch, a heavily marketed over the top action game, erm, film from Zack Snyder of 300 and Watchmen fame.

Set in... sometime, at... someplace, a character with... a name, is imprisoned because of... some reason... Huh? Yeah, what I’m basically driving at is that the plot is pretty much non-existent for the most part. I suppose there is a premise and an ultimate goal but stop at the finishing line before saying it went further. A wrongly convicted young women nicknamed “Baby Doll”, played by Emily Browning is sent to a mental institution and begins her attempt to escape by stealing various items from the worker, depicted through her own wild (understatement) imagination. But that’s established within the first couple of scenes and the game, erm, film really never returns until the climax. Between A and Z is a constant barrage of set-pieces and random exchanges of dialogue. Despite the crude story structure, the premise is a pleasant deviation. Despite what the trailer might have you believe, the concept of imagination displayed over real events is emphasized in multiple layers. There’s the gritty real world and the fantastical painting of the mind. Yet the game, erm, film seems most comfortable in-between, in a false reality that’s still realistic, being something of a high class brothel. To say the least, it’s very much an Inception-style approach to a more compressed state.

Get ready for the quick-time event button input.

In Baby Doll’s quest for freedom she must devise a plan, most involving the collection of various items from the institution employees while they are distracted by her hypnotic “dancing”. We never see the dancing however, instead we are introduced to all the promised eye-candy visuals. Before, when I said it was over the top, I think that phrase would fit nicely as a sub-header for the film title itself EG “Over The Top: The Movie”. We follow the action packed endeavors with her fellow inmates Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish), Rocket (Jena Malone), Amber (Jamie Chung) and Blondie (Vanessa Hudgens) as they fight their way through demon samurai, steam powered Kaiser German soldiers, dragon-keeping orcs and laser touting robots. Now to some *cough* many people that has to be one of the greatest lines up for a cast of enemies to slaughter your way through, let alone by a group of scantly-clad women with large guns, attack helicopters and battle-mechs, complete with all huge explosions and slow-motion fight scenes to put the action-adventure video game genre to shame. But there the problem lies, it’s not a video game, it's a film. Along for the ride, they are guided by the “Wise Man” (Scott Glenn) who actually comes off more like a video game non-playable character, dropping hints at the start of each level, just falling short of outright saying “use real-time weapon change before hitting the enemy’s weak point for massive damage”. I doubt anyone came for the dialogue, but in case you somehow failed to notice this past the film poster outside the venue, it does step into the cringe worthy territory.

Despite having seen all this CGI before, this unconventional blend of genres fits perfectly into this mental universe Zack Snyder has painted for us. And that’s the key word: painted. Coming back to my point about critics, the rather crippling average score of 20% on Rotten Tomatoes might make this film a closed case in terms of quality. Yet some may be discrediting this film for all the wrong reasons such as comparing the director to Michael Bay, but the problem is Mr Bay is nothing more than a flashy stain on the big screen. Despite having made a name for himself on it, the man DOESN’T know action. He’s generic, uninspired and at times downright offensive. But at least with Snyder he gives you the benefit of the doubt by portraying something visually more original and well crafted for the most part. Don’t get me wrong, it’s perfectly fair to dislike this sort of film, and Sucker Punch is rank with as much poor scripting and cliches as the next summer blockbuster cluster-fudge. To better describe it, as a piece of cinema, Sucker Punch is severely lacking even in some of the most basic departments of story telling 101, instead strangely working better as a 2 hour long music video. Even joking about, modern video games handle story better than this. Yet when it want to grab your attention with visuals alone, it's as if the screen forces your line of fight with an iron fist.

That's not what I was taught about the First World War.

Then of course there’s the inevitable cry of the feminist who finds the female cast to only serve as glorified pole-dancers. But let me ask you this, when all the women are sympathetic and likable (in spite of being card-board at times) whereas all the men are misogynistic cruel and abusive pigs, I’d rather put myself in the camp that finds it more “empowering” for the female extraction. But like I said, films that divide are an oddity because having said that, I found Sucker Punch to be very (for lack of a less crude term) “hot”, although you could and should apply different meanings to it in regards to the piece of film and only that. And I’d just be lying if I tried to pretend otherwise.

Think of it like Subway and McDonald’s, both fast food but at least with the former you have a better idea if the other-side of the counter has spit in your bun.

Sucker Punch is one of those classic examples of a film that divides critics and audiences, but unlike most it would be better to point out that even when branded cinema trash, which without covering one’s own eyes is more or less the case for many, you can and will do a lot worse. It’s a exercise of one-note characterization, strange pacing and head-scratching plot developments. But then again I can’t shake the moments of the clear satisfaction taken from the aggressive set-pieces. And that’s what annoys me, that I’m on the same boat as the very same who rightfully put down to likes of Transformers and Twilight, but sometimes I feel other critics just need to understand that you are allowed to shut off your brain and enjoy the spectacle on occasion, even if sometimes you feel as if you’re not watching a film at all but a run through of every action genre known the cinema... with a little T&A on the side. If you’re going to do wrong, it’s sometimes good to know that you can do it right, even it can make the most avid film fan feel dirty by the curtain call.

Also starring Carla Gugino, Oscar Isaac and Jon Hamm.

Film Review Roundup: January-February

2011-02-22T15:24:00.000-08:00

The King’s Speech

(Directed by Tom Hooper, running time 188 minutes)

Geoffrey Rush gets Colin Firth prepared for his award accepta... King's speech in The King's Speech.

Colin Firth is up for a string of awards the second time round after A Single Man playing King George VI, thrust into his royal duties who with the help of an unorthodox speech therapist played by Geoffrey Rush attempts to treat his stutter, which as a public speaker for the entire British Empire, such an issue is hardly good for morale. Despite being hit over the head with the heavy historical background and pure drama, the most interesting exchanges come from the dialogue itself between Firth and Rush, with the latter being the more memorable performance with his wit and light approach, occasionally stepping over into the comedic spotlight and considering all the just praise Firth has received, you know you’re getting a genuine top notch character piece.

Also starring Guy Pearce, Michael Gambon and Helena Bonham Carter.

127 Hours

(Directed by Danny Boyle, running time 94 minutes)

James Franco has just gotten over the !*@$?/"& moment in 127 Hours.

Throwing us another curve ball in terms of premise, Danny Boyle continues the tradition of delivering new and interesting pieces of film. This time around it’s the true story of Aron Ralston, played by James Franco, a mountain climber who is trapped in an open cavern after a rock wedges his arm against the wall, left there for over 5 days before amputating his own arm. Playing most of the film solo, Franco doesn’t hold back with his performance of the real-life counter-part, going through stages of desperation, anger, sorrow and even partial insanity. The film doesn’t hold back in emphasizing the gravity of his peril, with the most unforgettable moment being the said amputation of his arm. Despite the many violent films I’ve seen, this was the most “real” in highlighting the pain. Simply put, this is high caliber acting on display.

Also starring a rock and a hard place.

The Way Back

(Directed by Peter Weir, running time 133 minutes)

The group hit a little bump in the road in The Way Back.

A lesser known World War II historical piece, Jim Sturgess, Ed Harris, Colin Farrel (with a decent non-Irish accent this time) and Alexander Potocean are just part of the group of escapees from a Soviet gulag located deep within the frozen Siberian woodlands. Against all the elements, the group traverses through miles upon miles of harsh terrain, all the way to the Indian sub-continent, hopefully securing their freedom. Despite quite literally being a film about traveling, the character development and interaction with some strong performances makes for a well paced tale of struggle. Coupled with great cinematography and natural locations, this is probably one of the most underrated films recently.

NOTE: Having said that, I’ve also discovered that the UK release date WAS in 2010, meaning this most likely would have made the top nine list.

Also starring Saoirse Ronan, Dragos Bucur and Gustaf Skarsgard.

The Fighter

(Directed by David O. Russell, running time 115 minutes)

Christian Bale turns his on-set anger into coaching for Mark Wahlberg in The Fighter.

With already plenty of boxing-focused dramas up for the shiny statues over the decades, The Fighter appears to still be able to hold its own and not become an also ran. Based on a true life story, Mark Wahlberg plays an amateur boxer, close to his family including his unruly brother played by Christian Bale (who hasn’t looked this malnourished since The Machinist). It may be your typical story of the low commoner reaching new heights through sport, yet being based on a true story you can’t really fault it if you feel some aspects fall apart and/or resolve themselves. Plus all the turmoil that comes with it is still fresh, along with top-notch performances that carry the entire picture... yes, Wahlberg to.

Also starring Amy Adams, Melissa Leo and Jack McGee.

The Green Hornet (3D)

(Directed by Michel Gondry, running time 119 minutes)

"I bet this will look great in promotion" says Seth Rogen in The Green Hornet.

With DC and Marvel freshly tapped, even the lesser known crime fighters are getting the big screen makeovers. The initially odd choice Seth Rogen plays the said valiant vespa along with his significantly more interesting sidekick Kato played by Jay Chou as they attempt to clean up the mean streets made the way they are by “Chudnofsky” played by Christoph Waltz, how to pronounce his name being something of a recurring joke. Despite some decent choreography and special effects action sequences, with the 3D effects being noticeably on par (which in my book rates it as not 'entirely pointless'), this humor-laden comic adaptation only reaches half of the mark away from a true comedic showcase. While enjoyable enough, it’s also by the numbers that in turn makes it mostly forgettable.

Also starring Cameron Diaz, David Harbour and Tom Wilkinson.

Paul

(Directed by Greg Mottola, running time 104 minutes)

Simon Pegg and Nick Frost are back under the spotlight (urg... even I cringed at that joke) in Paul.

The always enjoyable comedy film duo Simon Pegg and Nick Frost are back again on the big screen, this time NOT under the direction of Edgar Wright (meaning the third Blood and Ice Cream film is still in waiting) playing a pair of nerdy British tourists in America on a road tour following Comic-Con who inadvertently stumble upon an extraterrestrial Area 51 runaway named Paul, voiced by Seth Rogen (this time being a fitting choice). Even though being from an advanced alien race, Paul is more akin to party going hitchhiker, making up plenty of humor itself. The entire cast gives well-played out comedy performances and on the whole are likable characters. Despite some erratic pacing and a shoe-horned romance subplot, this above and beyond road trip will most likely reel in the laughs, not to mention are few well placed geek culture references. While far from the tier of Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, Paul is still an enjoyable and a worthy film of its cast.

Also starring Kristen Wiig, Jason Bateman and Bill Hader.

Film Review: Black Swan

2011-02-21T09:57:00.000-08:00

(Directed by Darren Aronofsky, running time 108 minutes)

Natalie Portman and Vincent Cassel are ready to "dance" in Black Swan.

I’ve come to realize that in a Darren Aronofsky film, achievement is either out of reach or only obtainable through painful struggle or worse. While not necessarily a negative point, it does prepare one’s self prior to viewing. You’ll at least be prepared for the worse. More interesting though is this notion in itself is not really a “spoiler” for Black Swan, at least not for those who are familiar with Aronofsky’s work. If you’re not however... let’s just say that the trailer for the UK version is somewhat misleading.

That’s not to say the trailer completely is edited for marketing’s sake. The basic theme literally is one girl’s struggle to obtain her highest goal. Said girl is Nina Sayers, played by Natalie Portman, an aspiring talented young ballet performer. Despite the hidden strength that ballet requires, Nina is more of a full grown child, still showing timid behavior, prudishness and social ignorance, all of which seem to stem from her reclusive home life with just her over bearing mother who is also under the same mind set towards her daughter and who might just be compensating for her own lost days and passion for the dance. When her theater begins to recruit and train for a supposed different take on the classic ballet “Swan Lake”, Nina is perfect to play the role of the beautiful and elegant white swan... however it is a duel role requiring to play the alter-ego black swan, passionate, wild and loose... basically what Nina isn’t, so naturally training for such a role quickly becomes a full time obsession.

Meg Griffin?! No seriously, that is her on the left.

To throw a spanner into the works, the theater also receives a new recruit named Lily, played by Mila Kunis who actually seems perfect for the role of the black swan. As Nina begins to practice more and more, she begins to change in personality... but also in mentality, encouraged further by Lily’s wild and active presence. The is the prime focus of the film, the psychological changes Nina goes through and while to others she may appear in desperate need to break the routine, being an already fragile mind such changes take form in sudden, often times twisted manifestations. To give one example, throughout the film Nina develops scratches on her back, sometimes even bleeding to the concern of her mother and others yet the wound from only Nina’s perspective takes on a different form. Without spoiling anything, such obscure, even disturbing imagery best described as Cronenberg style body horror is what tempts the audience to keep watching (even though at times causing some to turn away) as throughout there is no clear picture to what these manifestations are or why they are happening and what you do witness may not be true to life... or not. Some might call these sequences more akin to a horror film yet being lightly spread throughout, it never really feels out of place from the drama.

It quickly invokes the same style of psychological torment of Aronofsky’s famous Requiem for a Dream, and just a with that film, one would go far as to call the film depressing at times. By no means on the same level as his previous “reaching for prozac” setup but still comes full circle back to the initial notion from the start of this article. Such is the case with Winona Ryder who plays a side role as the original top performer at the theater before being forced to retire, Nina’s new found popularity as the next star not being particularly good PR, which obviously leads to a break down that itself begins to haunt Nina and the audience.

When searching for stills, this one noticeably came up a few times... 'not sure why'.

One the side of performances, Portman who in the past has settled for just "being there" (glares at Star War I, II & III) truly does give her best as a fragile mind that has only just begun to grow while cracking down the middle. Mila Kunis who before was something of an unknown (seriously, Meg Griffin!?) has been able herself to pack a punch and leave with something memorable. Another role of note however comes from the character Thomas Leroy the theater director, played by Vincent Cassel who at first appears as your typical perverted old teacher archetype but instead becomes in Nina’s mind as something of a sexual liberator, as someone who is trying to help a servilely repressed woman. It’s a particularly profuse role and one that carries more weight within the narrative than as first expected and one whose overall character might divide audiences.

In the most straight forward of senses, labeling the pictures as a “ballet drama” like some trailers mentioned at the start would be something as to limit the potential audience (yes, there’s still that “girly” view of the practice). Ballet however is something of a vintage form of art and as with any art can come the negative psychological aspect from those already near to breaking point. Instead Black Swan presents us with a story of obsession and (a late) liberation of one’s life within the role of a high class performance. While less degrading to it’s characters like Requiem while also being less true to life like The Wrestler, the film is still a worthy companion piece that pulls all the punches to deliver a film that is both elegant and twisted and clearly some of the best performances of it’s actors and actresses so far.

The Top NINE Films of 2010

2011-01-29T12:15:00.000-08:00

Trivial post year thumbs up to rich and important people who do not know or care; that’s right, it’s yet another Top 9. Why top 9? Because when compiling lists I’m alway stuck on number 10 as there are always 5 films I could put in it’s place. Further more there is no number 1 in the conventional sense of being THE top of 9, just the closest to it, as 2 and 3 are also. And of course this is the 2010 for UK releases so IMDB’s dates might disagree with my own criteria.

9. Invictus

(Directed by Clint Eastwood)

Morgan Freeman finally performs the inevitable role of former South-African president Nelson Mandela as he uses rugby as a way to unite a nation split by racial tension. On the surface it’s a by the numbers sports drama of the underdogs winning the championship, which reads very cliche but in actual fact is what really happened, instead making it a well acted historical piece.

8. Machete

(Directed by Robert Rodriguez)

Robert Rodriguez casts Danny Trejo and co to fight Steven Seagal and co with big knifes and even bigger guns... need I say more?

Ok fine. While many films of it’s kind despite all “fun factor” are in actual fact very bad pieces of cinema (some not even being released in one). What sets this apart, crossing the line into “good film” territory is the the self-referential feel it has with all this being done by a good director and even a few good actors. On top of that it’s one of the best films to touch on immigration in recent time... if you find that an odd notion, take it up with cinema in general, its their fault. Though it’s mostly pure over-the-top violent fun, plain and simple.

7. Toy Story 3

(Directed by Lee Unkrich)

The final chapter in Pixar’s animated sensation that even with all the childish antics appeals to film-goers of all ages, after all like the character Andy, the original audience of the first and second are grown up themselves now. It’s hard to explain but the best way to describe it’s appeal is that it’s pits memorable characters in dire situations while at the same striking a perfect balance between comedy and drama (plenty of the former)... and the current children of this generation can still get onboard.

6. Kick-Ass

(Directed by Matthew Vaughn)

Based off the graphic novel no one had read, with “graphic” having multiple meanings, this clear cut action comedy is strikingly brutal since after all, vigilantism isn’t a clean and noble practice. With numerous break out performances for multiple new and upcoming actors, and one of the best from the mixed bag veteran Nicolas Cage, pretty much every character gets room to breath resulting in plenty of varied and humorous scenes... also did I mention it was brutal?

5. Crazy Heart

(Directed by Scott Cooper)

A limited release of a 2009 American film that was mostly known for one simple achievement: it finally earned Jeff Bridges an Oscar. A simple story about an aged-washed country musician and his new found relationship with a young journalist, Jeff Bridges really steals the show as the believable yet entirely fictional Otis “Bad” Blake who despite his alcoholism and sex antics quickly shows his true colours as an old man down on his luck who just wants the normal family life. If only the Dude got the Academy's respect.

4. Inception

(Directed by Christopher Nolan)

Modern Batman director takes a walk down the beaten path with an original science-fiction thriller with a script than can in the most professional terms can be best described as a “mind-fuck”. Despite in all honesty having to watch it twice to completely understand every other detail... and twist... and revelation, the plot itself is at the end of the day fairly straight forward. It’s just quite simply the thinking-man’s action film and to produce that successfully in the age of style over substance CGI, it’s a genuine achievement.

3. Four Lions

(Directed by Chris Morris)

Brass Eye’s Chris Morris dips his toe... dives head first into the world of amateur(?) Islamic terrorism in the UK. Despite all the crude humor and slapstick comedy, this bold grounded comedy actually depicts these four Stooges as just the sort of people extreme ideals can prey upon, the main cast themselves knowing little about the cause they “fight” for. Despite the balls the film has, the characterization and humor fits in and thankfully doesn’t participate in shock comedy with a sensitive theme, which most of the time is just for the sake of it.

2. Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World

(Directed by Edgar Wright)

Based off the series of graphic novels that weren’t even complete when this film was in production, Edgar Wright still manages to to geek out in the best way possible with a coherent plot in a world that works on retro video game conventions. Yet despite all the flash and references to popular culture, the story itself is actually more than a modern story of fighting for the princess but rather reflecting a young adult’s not yet perfect mindset and relationship issues. And if the best way to convey someone trying to workout their relationship in a proper dignified manner... is to portray that through a series Street Fighter fight sequences, well then, that’s just good entertainment.

1. The Social Network

(Directed by David Fincher)

In the modern age where the internet knows all and sees all, with Facebook currently as its church, David Fincher explores the thought process behind this simple (and to an extent sad) fact. Even though many have claimed that the narrative and characterization is noticeably dramatized from the real life story, that being the case is actually why this piece of film-making is so compelling to watch, showing just how innovation can quickly shape and break people’s lives. Further more to its credit is the lack of any noticeable protagonist or “hero”, myself and others still wanting to see how events unfold and just who will come out on top... the short answer is no one. In addition to a brilliantly composed soundtrack by Trent Reznor, the pacing and narrative flows perfectly with all the personal turmoil and back stabbing practices.

Film Review: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

2010-08-29T12:25:00.000-07:00

(Directed by Edgar Wright, running time 112 minutes)

NOTE: This review isn’t completely objective, having read all six volumes of the original Scott Pilgrim graphic novels.

Michael Cera has gained the +9 Sword of Flames in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.

While still waiting on World’s End, the third film of the humorously dubbed “Blood and Ice Cream Trilogy”, so far made up of modern British comedy classics Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, director Edgar Wright has gone completely state side, although further north... Canada in fact. Setting his sights on the comedy graphic novel series Scott Pilgrim, Wright intends on not only transferring the downright surreal and outlandish humor to the moving picture, but at the same time cramming all six volumes into the space of nearly two hours (incidentally, “vs the world” is the subtitle to volume two, while the film that shares the same name it’s still about six).

Like novel, like film, the story follows the daily trials of Scott Pilgrim (played by Michael Cera), a young adult living in Toronto and bassist for his aspiring band Sex Bob-omb (a’la Super Mario). Things quickly (and conveniently) take an unlikely shift when Scott falls for the mysterious Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead). After hitting it off, Scott soon learns that Ramona has not only been with seven others, but he must defeat them all in order to stay in a relationship with her, being dubbed the “League of Evil Exes” (not ex-boyfriends, emphasized for reasons to knock the socks of the male viewers). What sounds like an odd set up is actually only the half of it. When you take into consideration that the league is more of a collection of super villain like characters with real powers in a world where bodies explode into loose change, any fight would surely be some form of spectacle.

Must resist "HAMMER TIME!" joke.

The first thing viewers will notice however is how casual people react to displays of magical powers, super human strength and gravity deifying martial arts when the punch ups get heavy. Even the side characters show moments of other worldly fighting ability at times. Further more, the basic structure of daily life plays out at times like an 8-bit video game, with ability stats, experience points, life bars and extra life pick ups. Even some of the fights themselves play out like a game of Street Fighter or Tekken and that just scratches the surface of video game references. Throughout the entire run, random in-jokes and subtle hints will keep the most twitchy thumbed individuals with a great sense of reverence and nostalgia. The writers clearly have as much love for the medium as those of you.

But it’s not all Pac-Man (contrary to Scott’s belief), underneath all the geeky flash is actually a surprisingly solid social and relationship based narrative. From the get go, Scott is in fact a rather unlikable character, so rather than just an excuse to get laid in the long term, each fight also seems to slap some sense into his messed up inner mind (of which we get surreal literal glances of periodically). On top of that, Scott also appears to have baggage of his own as there’s very little in the way of the XX chromosome that hasn’t had a fling with him, particularly in the case of his recently dumped teenage girlfriend, the young Chinese Knives Chau (Ellen Wong) who is also the band’s biggest fan, border-lining on religious devotion. Despite being oddly left out of the marketing campaign and trailers, she is one f the most important characters who is having to deal with the break-up in her own irrational way. But don’t worry to those of you who may be fearful of walking into a “romantic comedy”, it’s much of that ill-fated genre as Edgar Wright’s Shaun of the Dead was. Along for the ride are a mish mash of social stereotypes as the gang of friends including Scott’s gay roommate Wallace (Kieran Culkin) who is one of the most down to Earth yet funny characters in the whole film, along with the pessimistic other members of Sex Bob-omb. In fact, there are plenty more realized characters to fill up the roster, but I’d be writing this for days to each fully mention.

"Kro..." what? All you need to know is that hurt.

Regardless of whether you have read the original stories or not, Edgar Wright’s new coat of paint is actually very faithful with only a few noticeable changes, for better AND for worse. On one hand, some scenes have been completely re-imagined, such as the the battle between Scott and the fifth and sixth evil-ex twins where before it was a series of encounters (with robots), this time around is a giant musical standoff between the twins and Sex Bob-omb where their music summons giant monsters. It’s a hilariously over the top sequence but at the later stage in the film not out of place and fits perfectly with the constrained length. Yet on the other hand, audiences WILL notice the fast pace of the overall plot, more so for those unfamiliar with the series. While hardly too erratic, the film is trying to get to each set-piece fight to the next while trying to also keep the consistent mood of the characters. More to the point, what happened over a course of a couple years, this time around happens in what feels like a week or two and it shows. Another is the general style of editing. However this is rather a mixed bag down to personal preference. The film utilizes an eccentric form of editing that mirrors the style of the graphic novels such as separate character frames, jump cuts without warning, information boxes that spring up throughout and flashbacks in the original art style. While I could have done without the latter that feels tacked on and lazy on the film-makers’ part, the rest in something very unusual in conventional cinema and as a result creates a unique viewing experience. Yet while trying to be as objective as I can, I have to admit this fast paced comic style will be bewildering to those very used to traditional editing techniques.

If you’re willing to take real life yet hurl basic science and social norms into the sun then you’d be able to appreciate Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. For all it’s over the top fight sequences and video game conventions, there’s also a good chunk of characterization and well written humor, meaning there should be AT LEAST a few things to enjoy, long time fan or not. For fans however, the adaptation is outstanding. Sure plenty has been cut and remodeled but it’s all to provide a coherent viewing experience that’s faithful and not an insult.

Also starring Chris Evans, Jason Schwartzman, Mark Webber and Alison Pill.

As a side note, the graphics novels are worth reading. The scenes that were changed are significantly more fleshed out, yet best of all there’s significantly more characterization and depth to the many side characters (including some great ones that never appeared in the film).

Film Review: The Expendables

2010-08-27T13:47:00.000-07:00

(Directed by Sylvester Stallone, running time 103 minutes)

Sylvester Stallone "is a big man (yes he is) and he has a big gun" in The Expendables.

Big guns, big explosions and big muscles, what some journalists have dubbed the “big dumb action flick”, this pseudo-genre is one of the more noticeable critical divides between critics and audiences. On one hand the critic is right since their only drive is to cause on screen havoc and cheap thrills, yet on the other the audience is right since there’s really nothing wrong with a little pure mayhem once in a while. It was popular throughout the 80s and early 90s and now such demands have resonated once again with The Expendables, an ensemble 80s throw back starring real 80s throwback action stars while tossing in a view recent “manliest men” archetypes for good measure.

From the various incarnations of movie posters, The Expendables boasts a near perfect action ensemble cast. Action veteran Sylvester Stallone is fresh off the killing floor from 2008’s Rambo, this time driving the cast as both lead star and director with Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lunggren, Mickey Rourke and a whole convoy of muscle men that either haven’t been blowing up bridges and turning over trucks for as long or as memorably for me to mention in the same sentence. As with the “big dumb action flick”, the plot is supposed to be as straight forward as the many, many bullets going through the many, many disposable cronies. The low down on the synopsis is basically “agency wants to kill maverick in hostile country, mercenaries hired for dirty work”, simple as A to B and you don't care. How we eventually get to that conclusion however is not so much needlessly complicated, rather postponed for the first half hour. Prior to this set up, it’s a slog between establishing the entire parade “built like a brick-shit house”.

Don't look so shocked, it's a Stallone film.

The first scene invokes memories of John Rambo’s notorious hyper death extravaganza with a crime boss getting a chest of projectile explosives before having to be wiped from the shaken faces of the nearby hired goons. Yet quickly the film already exposes a fatal flaw; BBFC 15. Despite Stallone at helm, The Expendables is far from the meat grinder that was Rambo. In fact, the first death of this film is probably the most violent and with the entire cast’s filmography having an on-screen body count large enough that could populate a small country making it genocide, you’d expect overkill to be an understatement in his next project. Instead the piles of bodies prior to the climax (that I will get onto later) is rather tame, with generic explosions, shot outs and punch ups making up most corpses. On top of that, between action scenes are sparse between exposition. With the exception Mickey Rourke (who gives an excellent yet out place within the film speech about death), the characters naturally are, how you say “meat heads” so of course the dialogue is equally simple. This wouldn’t be a problem if there was enough “big dumb action” to make up most of the “flick”. Between the opening and climax, the action is rather basic and in all fairness not that over the top either. Sure it’s fun but more to the point, it’s all been done in the 80s and early 90s, in some cases by the same cast members.

On top of that, the cast is regulated to Stallone and Statham, with the average on screen time for the rest of the ensemble before the climax amounting to roughly 5 minutes each. Even Jet Li who actually mostly appears in genuinely good films has a somewhat limited role and the much touted Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger are cameos at best. Now granted, Schwarzenegger was always going to be nothing more than a quick walk in and wave given his focus now being world conquest (of which they even joked about in the film) but Willis, who is still alive and kicking in acting was billed as an important role. For the man who played the immortal John McClane, that was a downright tease. It may seem like I’m being harsh on something that’s not supposed to be taken seriously, but things like that are supposed to be consistently entertaining... well, I wasn’t consistently entertained.

Jet Li (far left) looks the most out place despite generally kicking the most ass.

Ah, but don’t call me out just yet. I wasn’t not entertained either, like I’ve mentioned previously the climax was a check point before the flip flops between dumb fun and mediocrity. What seems like half an hour, the last stand of the rag-tag band and two-dimensional antagonists is the over the top ultra violence everyone came to see. It’s here and only here where each member of The Expendables earns their standout moment. We’re talking wide spread demolitions, gruesome dismembered, violent bone breaking and plenty of good old fashion cannon fodder on display. All past groans and yawns were rolled up in rug and thrown off a bridge as the insane massacre unfolded.

Yet there also lies the problem that it was pushed up against the wall from the get go. Unlike Rambo and even the very recent The A-Team, the build up was less than expected in the context of the “big dumb action flick”. Don't get me wrong, it's definitely down right mad at times (the notable case being an explosive get away in a plane), but when it’s the throwback to cheesy action greats, moments of serious exposition that isn’t supposed to be taken seriously and general lack of bloodshed, I can’t help but feel disappointed at times. Despite the climax being the most of the promise of over the top action expected from such a cast, everything else pales in comparison. Sure, some movie goers might lap up the action for the sake of it being action but they should also admit they saved the best till last. Best usually does come last in films, but Stallone failed to take the best bits and scatter them throughout. It’s definitely a “big dumb action flick”, where it aims to please it's an absolute success but not really a great one, and given the ensemble it really should have been just that. But now I won't SHAME it.

Now lets wait for, Machete.

Also starring... *sigh* a lot.

Film Review: Four Lions

2010-06-09T07:03:00.000-07:00

(Directed by Chris Morris, running time 100 minutes)

Free world beware! Riz Ahmed, Kayvan Novak, Arsher Ali and Nigel Lindsey are here to strike terror in Four Lions.

To those who may be unfamiliar with names alone, director Chris Morris is better known for his written and starring role in the highly controversial satirical faux-news program Brass Eye. That alone would make complete sense of the already awkward premise of Four Lions. Yes, it seems to sheer mention of Islam in popular media these days is enough to incite a fraction of doubt and unease in the public’s mind, yet here we have Al-Qaeda meets the Three Stooges...er, Four Stooges.

Four Lions follows the dimwitted exploits of four radical Islamic terrorists, in Sheffield, England, composed off two young adult brothers Omar (played by Riz Ahmed) and Waj (Kayvan Novak), the latter of which is how you say slow, middle-aged British convert Barry (Nigel Lindsey) and bumbling fool Faisal (Adeel Akhtar), all of whom aspire to of all things pull off a successful suicide bombing. The only problem with this gang of irrational simpletons are not only ill-equipped to use weaponry, they even have a poor grasp of the religion they’re fighting for. Soon enough, further problems arise when a fifth recruit, Hassan (Arsher Ali) joins the fray, whose just as way over his head than the rest of the “happy campers”.

Terrorism biatch!

The obvious point to note even before viewing is just how far the controversial premise goes. Islam aside, the set up of a suicide bombing on British soil is hardly the first sketch that comes to mind in situation comedy. As a satire on a recent news worthy issue however, the comedy just plain works. While the audience is treated to a foreseeable series of bombings gone wrong and near blown cover as punch-lines, the majority of the comedy however comes from the constant bickering between the cast, a staple of cynical British humor. Despite all sharing the same faith (supposedly), the entire ensemble are in fact perfect misfits. Even the young brothers are on opposite ends of the spectrum intelligence wise, a somewhat classic image of the narrow-minded yet idealistic modern day British youth. The rest however are just not well adjusted enough to be in the terrorist trade... and that has to say something.

Which brings me on to the most unique point of the film. In an odd yet compelling way the characters are actually rather likable with their [counter-]witty lines of dialogue and predictable failures like a cast of cartoon archetypes. In reality they’re the villains but since failure is a recurrent theme it’s no different from cheering on Dick Dastardly or Wile E. Coyote. The only difference is instead of getting a black cloud of smoke in the face you get reduced to a bloody pulp on the pavement. Don’t worry though, in the few instances when something does go boom, the said cloud is all you see. It’s rather clean on screen when your profession involves scattering your limbs down the high street. Thrown in for good measure is the other side of the coin, the British intelligence agency who as we know is prone to... how you say, “hiccups” in their profiling and direct handling with the apparent threat to national security.

*SIGH* These are the LAST guys you want to handle a bazooka.

There are to say the least a couple of dry spells humor wise given the heavy handed message the script is quite obviously trying to hammer home and much of one’s own enjoyment would be based on how they react to similar news stories and their stance on political correctness. Of all scenes that make the greatest impact is hands down the last character driven scene before the credits begin to roll. Naturally without spoiling anything, I’ll just say it’s both funny and relevant to the characters, but not what they’re doing.

The final point of note about Four Lions is how such a film wouldn’t be achievable if made in the good old US of A. This isn’t just due to the obvious fear of showing acts of terrorism in a slapstick tone within their own borders, but also my own guess is that the representation would be a more cliche and less believable cast of Muslims, perhaps using stereotypes that would cause an outcry that this film has thankfully avoided. No offense to the US filmmaking, but this is based of prior attempts. While no British comedy classic, Chris Morris however has once again gone against the current media mindset and produced a film that’s not afraid to show to a realistic enough approach to a news heavy issue and laugh about it.

Also stars Julia Davis, Preeya Kalidas and Kevin Aldon.

Film Review: Kick-Ass

2010-04-16T16:44:00.000-07:00

(Directed by Matthew Vaughn, running time 117 minutes)

Aaron Johnson gets ahead of himself in Kick-Ass.

Last year’s Watchmen was something of a mixed bag... well not for me, I loved it but I’m not narrow-minded enough to not acknowledge that for certain others it was hardly their favorite film that either they couldn’t understand or take its dark themes. Regardless of how you felt, what it was was a spin on the superhero genre, a plot element underused in cinema. To those who may have said nay to Watchmen (shame on you), while the very much hyped Kick-Ass has much in common with Alan Moore's brainchild; humanizing superheroes, casual violence and a twisted sense of irony, the plot is significantly more stream-lined and the general tone is much lighter.

Aaron Johnson plays Dave Lizewski, a teenage “comic-book nerd” who has an epiphany moment over the notion that despite its popularity, no one has tried putting being a superhero into practice, thus engaging in mask vigilantism himself in the form of “Kick-Ass”. Initially such attempts are comically futile even though being filmed and posted on YouTube helps his credibility much more than actual crime fighting (this subtle reference carries more weight as a a piece of commentary than at first glance). During the ride he gets mixed up with two highly skilled yet deeply deranged masked heroes; Big Daddy and Hit Girl, played by Nicolas Cage and Chloë Grace Moretz, both who are on the warpath against kingpin mobster Frank D’Amico played by Mark Strong.

McLovin to the rescue!

Sounds simple enough right? That’s because it is, while the story changes direction and tone between comedy and drama, the climax is clear on the the horizon. The prime issue to grapple with here is not the moral ambiguity of the script (trust me, if you haven’t already you’re bound to hear it from some heavily right-wing nut job radio commentator), I’ll get onto that later. No, it’s the genre. While all previews and trailers depict Kick-Ass as something of a comedy for young adults, greatly at times the whole mood takes a plunge into a psychological/social drama. While not overshadowing the obvious comedy touted outside the theaters, the drama is very much clear cut and stands out in a one by one ratio. Often at times the audience will witness a series of slapstick skits before taking in angst or sorrow the character might experience (because satire can be serious). This is a human related story after all. Even though such subject matter is sprinkled out in doses throughout the film to prevent becoming overbearing and in itself is defiantly apart of the overall experience as the comedy, I fear some questionable advertising may be setting some common folk up for a potential unpleasant surprise after having been put into the wrong mind set.

On the comedy front however, there is thankfully deliverance. Even with the glaring pit falls his character experiences as his alter-ego, Dave Lizewski also engages in a close friendship with one of the most attractive girls at his school, after having mistaken him for being a homosexual with the first joke to mind being the resulting sexual-tension on Dave’s parts as he consistently pretends to play along. Aside from the endeavors of the protagonist, further humor in exhibited from the youngest of the D’Amico clan, Chris/Red Mist played by Christopher Charles Mintz-Plasse, better known to the student audience as McLovin a’la Superbad who is as pleasantly awkward as ever, being an even more cocky yet useless rookie crime fighter than Kick-Ass himself. Additionally, the side cast such as Dave’s even more geeky friends and D’Amico’s hired goons have their own moments in the comedy spotlight.

Yeah, they might look normal...

However, it’s Big Daddy and Hit Girl who steal the show, being a pair of downright deranged individuals while at the same time oddly compelling that we even cheer on as they blatantly gruesomely decimate wave after wave of all sorts of unsavory low lives. And that’s something, like Watchmen, the violence is in plain site and rather unexpected, we’re talking massive head-shots, severed limbs and in one instance a guy exploding in a giant microwave oven. In terms of its violence however, given the comedy angle, it’s more reminiscent of Tarantino, being apart of the humor and colossal sense of irony. Nicolas Cage’s Big Daddy is something of a parent-orientated Batman who despite some hiccups in the past, I would say has redeemed his credibility as an actor. Chloë Grace Moretz is more of an oddity since despite being a mere child, pulls off some of Kick-Ass’s heaviest profanities and executions to the extent of forgetting her age completely... which leads me onto this...

NOTE: This next paragraph is more of a brief commentary over the recent controversy this film has caused rather than a view on the film itself so skip to the last paragraph to get right to the conclusion.

There may be some out there who find certain elements of Kick-Ass questionable, for others even distressful. One reason for such negativity to resonate may be a result from the already explained unexpectedness of the heavy violence and profanity. In this one’s own opinion, all this does is benefit the spin on the superhero genre and enhance the elements of social commentary here and there. The prime issue however is that of Hit Girl, where some have found distasteful and exploitative. First of all let me say anyone who thinks it’s exploitative is sick and for that you sir/madam are the deranged individual. As for the violence, I will admit at first it is somewhat bewildering to see a small girl massacre a group of drug dealers and towards the end even take a bloody punch to face, and while I can understand why such an image might be distressing to some, in the end it’s a matter of taste. Sure, a loving parent would not take such violence kindly whereas a teenager out for cheap thrills wouldn’t batter an eyelid.

Kick-Ass is definitely a unique film experience that you should check out, being part teenage comedy, part violent action and part social drama, all of which is helped further by its in your face satire and sharp script. For most I assume reading this, they’ll find something about it entertaining, but due to some hang ups people have had in the past I must emphasize they approach with caution as it is not entirely what it seems at first.

Also stars Lyndsy Fonseca, Clarke Duke and Nelson Frazier, Jr (that’s Viscera the wrestler).

Film Review: Clash of the Titans

2010-04-16T12:44:00.000-07:00

DISCLAIMER: I know I’m trying to shorten my reviews but in this particular case I’ve got a lot to get off my chest, which even then still isn’t long enough, so apologies.

(Directed by Louis Leterrier, running time 118 minutes)

Sam Worthington now missing Pandora in Clash of the Titans.

Greek Mythology is somewhat of an oddity for film makers, while it provides a ready selection of mythical creatures, legendary heroes and a sizable pantheon of Gods, the originally stories themselves don’t translate to the moving picture in the slightest sense if reverence is on the agenda. Arguably the best attempt at bringing life to the ancient fables was the 1963 Jason and the Argonauts, one of the first “swords and sandals” epics and easily featuring the best of stop-motion wizard Ray Harryhausen. However liberties were taken to give life to the exaggerated tales of old. His second Greek outing (no, not like that) however came in 1981 in the form of Clash of the Titans. Unlike Argonauts, the spectacle however was not the best acted or even groundbreaking, in fact it was a step back for special effects at the time. But why is it still remembered? Charm and camp value, which makes it a cult classic that being the case would make me “Brother Frank”.

A remake however is not a farfetched concept since Greek Mythology can also be epic, just look at the God of War video game series. The original Clash of the Titans however wasn’t actually much of an epic story to begin with so naturally any attempt at making it epic would either mean taking liberties or over doing the grand scale of story itself... where this 2010 incarnation does neither.

By all means does the screenplay take liberties with the original story (which took liberties of its own with the original legend so for all those familiar with the genuine text; you’ll stop grinding your teeth after 20 minutes) but this does not involve inserting some epic battle sequences. Sam Worthington, having washed off his Smurf make-up plays Perseus, the bastard child of Zeus (played by Liam Neeson), who after losing his adoptive family and ship is swept ashore the kingdom of Argos that initially relishes in it’s independence from the Gods not long before they’re groveling at the feet of Hades (played by Ralph Fiennes) who demands a sacrifice for the Kraken, lest they be completely obliterated. So naturally this set up leads Perseus and co on a grand adventure to stop potential annihilation, overcoming many obstacles in the form of mythical beasts... or “big bad beasties” using Hollywood logic.

We're not leaving until you say the line...

Already I’m questioning the plausibility of this set up. The writers themselves must have been in the mind set of “this happens because it was in the original” since a number of scenes played out in 1981 that don’t make sense in 2010. The most glaring of these is why is Perseus even on this journey? In the original, Perseus is out to save his beloved Andromeda and his soon to be kingdom while nearly 30 years later he is just out for revenge for the death of his family at the hands of Hades despite his quest not involving the goal of killing said Godof the Underworld. Further more upon his arrival at Argos he is treated like a scraping from under their sandal that begs the question why help them, especially since the people are bringing the wrath of Zeus upon themselves to the point of borderline painting a giant middle finger on the mountain side. The second issue is not so obvious since the plot element doesn’t come up much... and that is why it’s a problem. In 1981 the cursed beast Calibos is the whole reason the Kraken is summoned while in 2010 he is nothing more than a bribed peon of Hades, a tacked on reference to the original (although I will admit the mechanical owl joke was pretty clever). And thirdly Pegasus, the winged horse just turns up at the end sent by Zeus after a change of heart, there is no developed bond from the original making the creature more of a tool than a companion. I could name many others but I digress, in short it appears the film is so eager to get of the ground and wow audiences, there is no time to rationalize the legitimacy of the basic script. I’m not saying the original’s was perfect, but it was at least coherent.

Ok, so the script is clearly flawed but what about the characters? In a positive spin, the beauty part is there is definitely a band of interesting characters, that are built up from the start with different traits and backgrounds... slight problem however. Without giving away who and how, a good chunk are arbitrarily killed off making all that screen time building them up pointless if their deaths were so insignificant, screen time that could of been used developing the story itself. The acting is... ok. Not cringe worthy but tolerable... at times. The biggest chip on my shoulder is the Greek Gods themselves. Now Neeson and Fiennes are perfectly acceptable but why are they dressed like a camp stage theater retelling of King Arthur? What happened to the togas, the auroras of thunder, giant muscles and general sense of power? Why do the pantheon congregate over a landscape for train sets? They may act like Gods, heck the much touted line “release the Kraken” does pack a punch, but they don’t look like Gods.

This really isn’t going well?

CGI then. Thankfully, unlike the rendition of Olympus, the landscape does invoke the epic scale of Greek Mythology with the city of Argos alone rivaling that of the Lord of the Rings Minas Tirith. Even the desolate lands where twisted old witches reside comes off more as the shores of hell (or Hades). As for the inevitable monster mash, the bands of warriors plow through giant scorpions, harpies, Medusa and of course the Kraken, although the course is a little light, lacking the 1981 giant hawk and two-headed dog. In their place however are mysterious, almost wood like sand people who actually ally themselves with our heroes, which to their credit are at least visually striking and unique. The Kraken is defiantly the highlight despite like the original doing little in the way of... being the Kraken, but the hype prior is actually overbearing in a good way. Medusa however is less menacing this time around, having much less build up and sense of horror with the confrontation being more action orientated like the rest of the film. While it’s good action no doubt, it lacks any importance given the monsters before were casually despatched as mere hurdles. I mean even the sand people are immune to her powers, making her as an entity of pure dread redundant. On the up side, the giant scorpion sequence appears more important and exciting than it’s supposed to be given its significance to the overarching plot.

Medusa 2010 (above) and Medusa 1981 (below), who looks more "cursed"?

As a remake, if you saw the original first, you probably will be wanting more. As a stand alone film, it is deeply flawed. While action and spectacle take centre stage, the various hiccups along the road make the whole epic experience more of a bumpy ride. Since I essentially have a great gay boner for Greek Mythology (joke), I found myself crushingly disappointed. Not because of the liberties taken with the source material or the lack of charm the original film possesses but for the lack of epic scale and fantastical sense of awe that Greek Mythology is perfect for. The best case in cinema is still Jason and the Argonauts and very few things can even such the sheer spectacle of the God of War games, Greek Mythology or not. 2010 Clash of the Titans is not a straight up bad film, I’m sure there many who can enjoy it for the grand CGI fest it is since there is a lack of mythological orientated films, but the overall experience is lacking. I mean with a name like CLASH of the TITANS, you'd settle for nothing less than over the top epic scale. While I prefer not to grade or score a complex opinion like most critics, this film can best be described as around the C- range film, not too bad, but not really that good either... it’s just there for you.

A review first: director Louis Leterrier...

SHAME ON YOU!

Also starring Gemma Arterton, Jason Flemyng and Mads Mikkelsen.

Film Review: How to Train Your Dragon

2010-04-04T05:51:00.000-07:00

(Directed by Chris Sanders and Dean DeBlois, running time 98 minutes)

Jay Baruchel gets the "new black" dragon in How to Train Your Dragon.

Looking back at the many animated films I delved into, I can only sneer at the sugary AND cheesy onslaught that insulted my intelligence, if I had any that is, I was 6. I my view, a good children’s film is one you can look back on fondly and even enjoy once you’re all grown up... and the same applies today. So as a huge cynic, any children’s animated feature I can enjoy must be worth a glance for the bigger hearted regular audience. So far, only Pixar seems to be able to charm my critical attitude... but How to Train Your Dragon is a DreamWorks production and I did not enjoy Shrek. Before I get this review underway, let me briefly explain why I paid the price of admission; one, the reviews to mine and everyone else’s surprise were phenomenally positive and two, I’m a sucker for Vikings... with that child like remark, now I don’t seem so negative as a person.

The oddly named How to Train Your Dragon follows the endeavor of Hiccup, also oddly named, voiced by Jay Baruchel, a weak and young Viking blacksmith who supplies the weapons to the rest of his more typical fat, drunk and horned Viking clan who are under constant attack from an array of monstrous and cartoonish dragon archetypes. After inadvertently bringing down one of the harder to slay beasts, being the lesser Viking he is, he instead helps it heal before learning to ride and eventually befriending one of the dragons his people have been fighting for so long...

...yeah, it does sound familiar, more so to anyone who read my Avatar review. The story of of a hero switching sides is a tired out formula but as strange as it sounds, this animated feature isn’t the overhyped cliche spectacle some “other” films turn out to be. The prime difference is in its characterization. First of all, the dragons aren’t innocent creatures, they’re violent fire breathing behemoths, basically they’re real dragons. Secondly the Vikings aren’t even villainous, they’re just defending their homeland. In fact, neither the dragons or Vikings are the protagonists or antagonists, it’s about Hiccup and his juggling of caring for a dragon in secret while trying to train himself back at his village in a rather comically blunt series of Viking duels, all of this before an epic climax that you won’t guess from the trailers alone.

Seriously, would you argue with a Viking called Stoic the Vast?

Might sound simple enough, but it’s the characters and humor that stand on its own feet. The dragons come in different shapes and sizes (and methods of attack) ranging from the simple design of the lead dragon to both cartoonish and menacing with their entire personality shown through their movement and facial expressions. In short they don’t talk or try to act like humans, which the animations of old did... excruciatingly. The Vikings themselves are also more typical of their kind, enjoying to drink, eat and fight and we’d expect nothing less. When Hicupp’s overbearing father and chieftain of the Vikings, Stoic the Vast (voiced by Gerard Butler) was introduced in the opening, I couldn’t help but grin for minutes afterwards at that name alone. Another Viking of note is Gobber the Belch (voiced by Craig Ferguson), sporting artificial limbs and an unconventional and downright dangerous training technique for new dragon slaying recruits.

The story is somewhat formulaic and there aren’t that many surprises outside of the characterization making for a somewhat predictable flow in a couple of instances, but what you do get is a series of excellent set piece scenes and epic battles with subtle humor and charm. Further more, the Viking setting is a fresh change of pace from talking animals and inanimate objects, which also allows for a pleasant orchestral score accompanied by Celtic pipes, which isn’t the most common thing to hear in an animation... except Beowulf, but I have it on good authority that may not be for children.

It might sound odd at first to enjoy such a film at my age but how many of you are planning to see Toy Story 3 hmm?

Also stars America Ferrera, Jonah Hill and David Tennant (yes, that one).

Film Review: Alice in Wonderland

2010-04-03T09:23:00.000-07:00

(Directed by Tim Burton, running time 109 minutes)

Mia Wasikowska gets ready for the second vacation in Alice in Wonderland.

Tim Burton is losing his flare... not the most encouraging start to a review. But seriously, what was once a unique take on the fantasy genre has since become, to a degree a studio brand. This post-modern goth has rinsed and repeated to the point of becoming predictable and repetitive. Still don’t know what I mean?

Mia Wasikowska plays a now adult Alice straight after donating a third of her blood, who ends up in over the top fairy tale world of Wonderland after tumbling down a rabbit hole more reminiscent are a vortex induced by magic mushrooms (not that I’m suggesting anything). Short of weird for the sake of weird, we are then introduced to the whole shebang of Wonderland misfits; there’s Barbara Windsor as the twitchy Dormouse, Michael Sheen as the oddly depressed White Rabbit, Stephen Fry as the down right sinister Cheshire Cat and Matt Lucas as Matt Lucas... I mean Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Despite being sidelined as mere sideshows, the manic monsters are easily the highlight of this surreal display, bursting with personality and humor.

Mad as a Tim Burton character.

Beyond the anthropomorphic parade is the Mad Hatter played by Johnny Depp who I’m starting to think has shacked up with Tim Burton. Don’t get me wrong, Johnny Depp is as delightfully schizophrenic as ever but it’s become mandatory in a Burton production so even though Depp is the star, we already have a good impression of how much twitchy rambling to expect.

But I digress. Alice has apparently been brought back to Wonderland after her first visit as a child to overthrow the Red Queen (played by *sarcastic surprise* Helena Bonham Carter) and return the crown to the White (understatement mind you) Queen (played by a tolerable Anne Hathaway), which can only be done after defeating the “Jabberwocky” in an epic battle... yeah... As you may have already noticed this is not the Alice in Wonderland we know. If anything this is Alice in Wonderland 2 without the first installment. The prime issue I have is while I relish in good story structure, when the credits started to roll, I couldn’t be wonder if the the story would of faired better if it was actually a random secession of surreal events, like the original narrative because at its most obscure the film stands out.

Burton seems to have injected a Christian fable into a children’s fairy tale with the result being more Lord of the Rings than Nightmare Before Christmas in its crazed series of events. When you see the Had Hatter swinging a clamor in a duel with an evil knight, you don’t know what to think and I doubt that’s what Burton wanted. The entire package is what you’d come to expect from the man of white make-up, and for some that’s even a plus, but for me and a good deal of others it’s become repetitive despite trying to be an original twisted style. Turning classic stories on their head is a good concept but vary the style at least! Otherwise we’re going to the Wizard of Oz with a sexually mature Dorothy, monstrous lion, cyborg Tin man and zombie Scarecrow.

Also stars Crispin Glover, Alan Rickman and (briefly) Christopher Lee.

Editorial: Are romantic comedies ruining local cinema?

2010-01-26T11:38:00.000-08:00

First written 6th September 2009

Me and the Romantic Comedy genre, or “Rom-Com” have always had a straightforward relationship. To put it bluntly it’s the only genre I’m not too keen on... scratch that, out right hate. But my recent issue with this flamboyant sub-genre has not manifested itself from it’s predictable plot-lines, bland characterization and half-baked attempts at both romance and comedy, no. I respect other people’s opinions and these films cater to the young women of this world and their clearly reluctant boyfriends, however in recent times my patience has to be running thin. These films not only appear to be churned out as if the genre was on a money powered iron lung, but has even begun to shaft films that are in many instances more critically AND commercially successful. This could be the case with any genre of film but in a landmark case of “Sod’s Law”, it’s the Rom-Com on trial.

Those of you who are fortunate to live in the big cities might usually be treated to a variety of local cinemas with up to three in any district alone not counting independent film groups. Those on the other hand who are unfortunate to live in the quiet town cliche have had to settle with just the one, thus only what it shows. Despite the film industry like any other creative media being full of artistic talents prepared to create something worthwhile, at the end of the day it is still an industry, run by studio executives and high roller producers whose goal is make money and these times of bloated action flicks and half-baked comedies what’s the best route to take? Something unconventional like Natural Born Killers made $60 million, something complex like The Shawshank Redemption made $30 million, heck even something with Johnny Depp like Ed Wood made just $6 million (and you know what fangirls are like)... a Romantic Comedy on the other hand, Four Weddings and a Funeral made $250 million! All these films were released in the same year and this is just one example. Great, looks like I’m stuck with the latter in this months local release schedule.

While Four Weddings and a Funeral was a hit with apparent originality for it’s time, all those involved must now carry the stigma of trend that followed. Without pointing the finger at any particular chain of cinemas (you know who you are), the Romantic Comedy genre is a chronically fattened up cash cow that seems to be milked on a regular basis with up to three of this genre currently in the UK top ten alone at the time of this article, withdrawing those that settle with just the romantic half (that would raise it to four films). A cliche ridden summer blockbuster like Transformers 2 or GI Joe might appear to be the worst offenders when it comes to cash consuming trash since they’re big, loud and have unusually attractive women as the innocent bystanders. While these films’ marketing campaigns are on par with a Mongol conquest, the sheer volume of Rom-Coms is somewhat more surprising than previously thought if not actually scary. Using US box office referencing, If you were to collect every American film since 1980, categorize each into a genre then further sub categorizing each again, the average number of films for each kind of film is between 30 and 80... for Romantic Comedies there are over 300. And if you bother including films that run in the same format such as teen comedies and youth-orientated musicals, it would go beyond the thresh hold making it the largest scripted genre. With that prospect in your head you’d happily line up days before the release of Transformers 3: Rise of the CGI. At least then they’d be variety.

From personal experience, in 2008 alone, there were two films I was prepared to dish out my last few coppers for the unreasonably high entrance fee, yet in an ironic twist none of which were released at my local cinema. The first film to fall foul was the Oscar winning No Country for Old Men, instead I got “P.S. I Love You”, that all I got from was an overly warm pin up flaunting a cringeworthy pair of young lovers embracing. The second was Cloverfield, a film upon reflection was severely hyped, particularly on the net. Nope, instead I got “Over Her Dead Body” starring some... thing from Desperate Housewives (on a side note No Country was eventually shown at an independent venue and for the first time sold out the hall). But here’s the thing, unlike the impressive revenue of Four Weddings and a Funeral, these other examples of the genre didn’t crush their own studio under it’s vast gross profit, so why were they inflicted upon a small town that already had it’s fill with the likes of them in previous years and is now starving for something original and mind blowing?

Perhaps I’m looking to much into it and there’s only so long a subject can milked for the big screen with this genre being something of a recent incarnation. But here’s the thrust of my concerns, they’ve only tapped a small percentage of possible romantic comedy scenarios. With the recent trend of remakes and sequels, it’s not far-fetched to see this pattern merging with the already bloated genre. And here’s the scary part, they haven’t even begun utilizing queer culture, Bollywood, science fiction and horror hybrids and historical backdrops. For this film goer, queer culture has the potential to become the worst offender. Films like Brokeback Mountain and Milk took a sensitive approach to the subject matter yet it’s camp, or “metrosexual” thats all the rage and with the success of the Sex in the City movie, it’s just a matter of time before the Will and Grace or Queer Eye factor begins showing it’s well-styled face on the cinema scene.

But I digress... Whether or not you’re a fan of Romantic Comedies, no one could possibility stomach the vast quantities of this genre. Even if in a blissful state of mind you are some how an avid Rom-Com fan, you’d be broke if you wanted to see everything plastered on the cinema walls, plain and simple. Since this article is in such negative spirits, the question I can only ask is who’s to blame? Can it be the public despite some box office figures still indicating the craving for other genres? Maybe the cinemas themselves despite thinking they’d learn their lesson from showing films that didn’t break records? Technically there is no right or wrong culprit here, in fact it’s most likely a mixture of both parties... but for this film goer it’s neither. Instead it’s our good old friend *cue dramatic music* the Advertisers... and why isn’t even difficult to think about. While not trying to show bias against a genre I’ve denounced from the beginning, many of them don’t have the originality to survive on their own merits, so instead they’re branded on every TV break, poster space and website. I dare you to look into any three of these and not tell me you’re found at least a couple of these films or even teen comedies or feel-good films that are typically the same thing. If you took someone unfamiliar with the film industry and marched them down the street to the local cinema, they might just think it was the only genre.

Yes, I know many blame big budget action films for the dumbing down of cinema, but in an unfair comparison: Harold Shipman killed more people than Jack the Ripper, but who is more famous?

Statistics from Box Office Mojo, image from "toothpaste for dinner" comics.

The Top NINE Films of 2009

2010-01-20T06:26:00.000-08:00

Why top nine films when everyone else does ten? Because like everyone else, it’s always a struggle to pick out the best ten of anything and thus becomes stuck over whether to choose A over B out five others... so I’ve eliminated that problem altogether and just cut the tenth number and all those other potential films in the process.

Another thing I should point out is there are many films classed as 2009 but have or will be released in the UK in 2010 that are usually the award winning line up. Despite that however, for this year I have also not included those films released in 2008 but 2009 in the UK that are also award winners, quite simply to start off fresh. If I did however, the number one would be The Wrestler.

Next year the early 2010 award winners, if any worthy, will be mentioned in a 2010 top nine.

Further more, there are no doubt some 2009 foreign films I have yet to see or even hear of that would probably destroy all the other competition. So without further delay...

9. Paranormal Activity

(Directed by Oren Peil)

Despite the shakey-cam technique being the usual clutter of distortion and camera movement too fast for a handheld, by simply using a tripod and one shot, Paranormal Activity instantly becomes more coherent, realistic and ultimately scary as a result.

8. Zombieland

(Directed by Ruben Fleischer)

While not an entirely original concept, this comedic adventure of a zombie apocalypse delivers a perfect balance between grotesque slaughter and crude dialogue with all the characters fitting a role suited for a zombie survivor... not to mention an excellent Bill Murray cameo as himself.

7. Drag Me To Hell

(Directed by Sam Raimi)

Sam Raimi returns to form with an over the top story of gypsy curses and keen demons thats creepy and funny at the same time. A great comeback after the cliche ridden Spiderman spectacles to return to a better suited cliche ridden horror but this time it’s on purpose.

6. Moon

(Directed by Duncan Jones)

An unusual sci-fi drama about the story of a lone astronaut and his future-set mission to the moon under the watchful eye of an industrial powerhouse, although such a description hardly does this unique film justice. Quite simply it is a film with philosophy and psychology; hard science fiction.

5. The Fantastic Mr. Fox

(Directed by Wes Anderson)

Probably the most tame of the list, using old fashion stop-motion animation (original once more by today’s standards) and a quirky sense of humor, this tale of sly woodland critters over the top feud with upper class farmers is both amusing to and pleasant to watch... if not at times slightly weird.

4. Inglorious Bastards

(Directed by Quentin Tarantino)

Quentin Tarantino merges a Pulp Fiction story with Third Reich spin following the seedy plots of a rag tag band of Allied butchers and slick yet sinister Nazi leaders. The plot rarely takes itself seriously and is clear on staying as far from historical accuracy as possible, which makes it all the more fun to watch.

3. District 9

(Directed by Neill Blomkamp)

The excellent and engaging premise of extraterrestrial refugees slots together perfectly with the deranged plot of a human peace keeper’s transformation into the said alien insectoids. At first the audience is ushered in with a semi-documentary style story structure before becoming a more personal tale of the alien-human hybrid’s struggle with the military giant he once worked for. While one of the most violent films of 2009, there’s plenty of context to set itself apart from violence for the sack of violence flicks.

2. Watchmen

(Directed by Zack Synder)

300 director Zack Snyder takes on the hefty mantel of the classic graphic novel Watchmen, the downright bleak works of Alan Moore. Unlike most superhero adaptations that follow the traditional plot structure of “man becomes hero, struggles against villain”, Watchmen is about the washed up lives of ex-costumed crusaders who as normal people are hardly the ideal humans that are usually painted. Given it’s dark and downright depressing take on the genre, it captures the gritty realism of its alternate 1980s backdrop while inserting a good dose of social and political commentary. Mark my words, this will be remembered more than any blockbuster in the years to come.

1. The Hurt Locker

(Directed by Kathryn Bigelow)

Kathryn Bigelow’s take on America’s current war in Middle-East, despite some questionable advertising is hardly your conventional affair of Hollywood celebrities running and gunning through explosions set off by cliche arab militants or corrupt oil company henchmen. No, this is the real deal, war as it is. The plot quite simply follows a long years work of a three man Bomb Ordnance Disposal team and their increasingly hostile tasks at hand. There is no tale of revenge or redemption, and the small portion that nearly steps into such territory only lasts 10 minutes before getting back in line. And with the actors as normal humans, they all convey their own forms of fear, anger, humor and at times scary enjoyment that comes in the line of duty. Further more the message is not black nor white since while many will interpret the context as anti-war, the reason being is that it just shows war and war is hell but then again even the pro-war know this. The fact that America itself has made a well made war film that neither relishes in the glory or bloodshed of modern warfare is worthy of praise.

Film Review: Avatar

2010-01-05T15:31:00.000-08:00

(Directed by James Cameron, running time 162 minutes)

Sam Worthington plays the blues in Avatar.

Its been 10 years since James Cameron achieved the greatest heights of the film industry with Titanic, winning 11 Oscars and becoming the highest grossing film of all time. Not only is this the success many film makers hope to achieve but it was with arguably one of his weakest films. Those of us who knew Cameron before Titanic know him for such action Sci-Fi classics such as Terminator and Aliens and after so long, the prospect of Cameron returning to his once beloved genre must be something of a God send to anticipate with a passion, and boy do we all know how hyped this film has been, but is such blind praise justified? In clear cut terms: sort of...

It’s 2154, the RDA corporation has begun mining the resources of a organic rich planet known as Pandora, home to a vast array of exotic alien creates and a race of tribal humanoids known as the Na’vi. Sam Worthington of Terminator Salvation fame plays Jake Sully, a wheel chair bound marine who is given the opportunity to participate in the Avatar program, an operation that sees humans take full body control a manufactured Na’vi host in order integrate, communicate and eventually make deals with the local alien populace. It is when in his Avatar form, Jake quickly becomes one of the tribe, even to the point of falling in love with the Na’vi female Neytiri, played by an unrecognizable Zoe Saldana. After seeing RDA for the unethical military giant it is, Jake quickly begins to oppose the power hungry machine that once employed him.

Is "epic" the right word?

Sounds like your standard affair of the protagonist switching sides and joining the underdogs after the big bad super power step on one too many toes... and it is. With the exception of the remarkable landscape, the story is as distant from originality as your eyeballs will be from the front of your skull if you watch this in the front row. As a result, the story becomes an ever increasing case of predicable plot twists, revelations and other developments. For example after the first sight of Colonol Quaritch (Stephen Lang), it becomes obvious to the viewer that he is the antagonist even if his first impression is somewhat warming. Because of black and white nature of the plot, certain elements outside of the special effects are downright confusing if Cameron is out the make Avatar as believable as it is alien. In one instance, head of the RDA-hired scientists, played by the always fantastic Sigourney Weaver, attempts to explain the science behind why it would be a bad idea to dump yet another mineshaft on sacred Na’vi land but is instead shrugged off by corporate big wigs. In the future, science has, built up the military, taken them beyond the stars and made first contact... so forgive me for thinking we’d take the advice of scientists with more than a grain of salt. Another follows where I then fail to believe that only one token female in the entire armed forces would find an issue with incinerating an entire village for the purpose of profit. It’s with moments like these where the cracks in the narrative begin to hinder the fine water-colour painting that is Avatar.

But I digress, the plot and characterization is by no means bad at all. The story is well structured and moves at a good pace and all actors are capable at worst with many stand out if not memorable roles. Its just when the director calls his film a “character driven piece”, only to then rely on expensive special effects, don’t complain if I was disappointed in the narrative department. And yes I could take about the parallels between the Na’vi and the Native Americans or the ecological subtext but it’s so inherently obvious I would be wasting mine and your time. Its definitely character driven at times, albeit with 2D characters (I mean really, does the antagonist need to have a head of scars?).

Why can't our forests glow?

But you didn’t come for the characters did you? No, just like with Titanic you came with the promise of spectacle and trust me when I say there’s a lot of it, and it definitely pays off. The world of Pandora is a marvel in it’s own right. Forests of lush illumines foliage, an array of different giant alien beasts that roam the lands in vast numbers, whole mountain ranges floating amongst the clouds, trees that can simply dwarf any man-made structure, the list goes on. Where most special effects these days are nothing more than a new coat of paint for their mandatory explosion sequence, Avatar seeks to immerse you in it’s strange yet exciting world. The Na’vi themselves aren’t bad looking either, being as believable as any other real human on screen. But it is this believability that pays of the most. Where Cameron has succeed in making the Na’vi a believable and sympathetic race, the film quickly transforms into a somewhat docu-drama feature where Jake relishes in the practice of their humble yet fascinating culture, going into great detail about the Na’vi hunting, religious and social practices, with the most striking point being that it’s not boring nor unnecessary. The more you learn about the Na’vi, it will become easier for audiences to sneer at their own race as it is depicted. That alone is a praise worthy triumph.

Despite all it’s issues (again, scars?), I can safely put people’s biggest fears to rest; Avatar is not all style over substance. Sure, the substance could be thicker and while the plot is somewhat formulaic with much of the film’s focus on the lavish CGI, its a definite bar above most blockbuster outings with its uniquely crafted world of Pandora being a place you will probably want to revisit. And as someone who only went to see the 2D incarnation, the bar should be quickly raised another peg in 3D in what will be no doubt a memorable and awe-inspiring experience for many movie goers...

...now if only the closing credits soundtrack wasn’t so cringe worthy.

Also stars Joel Moore, Giowanni Ribisi, Michelle Rodriguez and Wes Studi.

Film Review: Harry Brown

2009-12-04T11:45:00.000-08:00

(Directed by Daniel Barber, running time 103 minutes)

Michael Caine plays it cool in Harry Brown.

It’s been nearly 40 years since the British crime classic Get Carter, in what became an iconic role for veteran actor Michael Caine. After all these years, with many film roles ranging from action to comedy, thrillers to dramas, we all in the UK still can’t get enough of the vintage cockney accent. So when I learn that Caine is back again in a lead role for a gritty British crime thriller, I can’t help but rub my hands in anticipation... let’s just hope it’s not a disappointment.

Michael Caine plays Harry Brown, a retired ex-royal marine with his wife on her death bed, spending his last days in run down flat on a crime ridden inner-city estate ruled by gangs of teenage thugs and drug dealers. If things couldn’t get any worse, his last remaining friend Leonard (played by David Bradley), after constant harassment from the local gangs led by young thug Noel Winters (played by Ben Drew), is brutally beaten and stabbed to death after a confrontation. With only himself left and the police seemingly doing nothing, Harry sets out on a violent vendetta against Noel and the gangs.

Your average morning on the estate.

Now already I have a slight issue with describing the synopsis, since that’s as clear cut as I would like to make it. In truth, there are multiple developments in the story with enough exposition to explain the dark events that unfold. And this film is very dark. From the very beginning, the audience is painted a picture of the most squalid and run down section of London imaginable, no doubt directed at those of you who might have lived in a pleasant rural village most of your life. What’s emphasized most of all however is the teenage thugs that seem to be the embodiment of all things “chav” and “yob”. It’s almost scary how believable these gangs are, especially since we don’t want to believe such people could thrive in a supposedly developed country. Yet they do. But before you start clenching your fists, the film doesn’t leave out the parents in this social matter. Noel’s father for example is in prison, implied being even worse than what is shared on screen while another seems to have been sexually abused by every foster family that took him in. With such unstable backgrounds, it’s nice to know youth violence isn’t completely white washed because Harry Brown is clearly making a political and social comment on modern affairs, and to do this well you have to be rational about it. To put in bluntly, the world around Harry is both dark and gritty yet real and heart breaking.

Yet despite the film’s good intentions, it’s Michael Caine we came to see. Simply put, Caine is definitely giving it his best and it shows. Despite at first appearing as nothing more than a typical old age pensioner, Caine quickly becomes Jack Carter of the 70s, even though he’s now in his 70s. After accidently stabbing a mugger in self defense, the character Harry is quick to return to his World War II days. He then proceeds to harass, taunt and even torture various gang members, all maintaing his status of quiet old man on the estate, hence why the police hesitate at first. Through all the turmoil that arises (especially towards a particularly heavy climax), Harry Brown is a very likable character, and to pull this off despite the inevitable debates over vigilante justice that will arise as a consequence has to say something about how well Caine can still pull off such performances.

"You stuck it where!?"

Even with a great lead, the message of Harry Brown is a fickle one. Although I mentioned how the antagonists aren’t depicted so black and white, how they should be punished on the other hand is as simple as pulling the trigger. By all means, in most films the audience is supposed to cheer on the final execution, which seems all you can do with such sickening characters on show, but given the concerns raised about the state of the country in the film, there are moments that make you wonder if it was written by an editor for the Daily Mail (even I left the cinema with tight fists). Further more, while Caine is excellent, the film is not Get Carter or the Italian Job. By this I mean the film is so dark and violent in it’s gritty modern setting, there’s no time or space for the dry wit or irony, and considering Caine is essentially playing the same role as the previously mentioned, there’s not even one line to drag the film from it’s depressing little corner that can be disappointing for fans of the classics. Don’t get me wrong, there are one or two lines that, to be low brow, just ooze with cool but because of the tone of the film, almost every thing about it is sad. Saying this now, you should prepare yourself for a heavy ride.

Harry Brown is an odd ball when it comes to its message and while you get what you’d expect from a gritty crime drama/thriller; being dark, violent and crude, because of such a heavy tone, that’s all it is. But what you do get is a well constructed revenge piece/general social statement and above all else it’s hard to complain when Michael Caine still reigns supreme in a leading role that might very well be his last of its kind.

Also stars Charlie Creed Miles, Emily Mortimer and Liam Cunningham.

Film Review: Paranormal Activity

2009-12-01T11:47:00.000-08:00

(Directed by Oren Peli, running time 86 minutes)

WARNING: Due to the shaky camera technique used in the film, some may experience nausea at one point.

Katie Featherston and friend pictured in Paranormal Activity.

I don’t believe in ghosts, and if they were real I can’t understand how they have power over the living. Because of this, if I were a character in a horror film I would obviously play the skeptic who appears in just the first quarter only to be killed off as a result of his own cynicism. What is a text book example of horror film cliché here, thankfully doesn’t apply much elsewhere in the latest of shaky camera faux documentaries; Paranormal Activity.

The set up couldn’t be any more simple: young couple Katie and Micah (Katie Featherston and Micah Sloat as actors) are haunted by an unknown spirit and film each night’s sleep while at the same time their constant personal difficulties and unease from an ever increasing, you guessed it, paranormal activity. Besides some quick exposition explaining that Katie of the two has been haunted as such before, the film jumps straight ahead with character interaction by day and long still horror sequences at night, with the latter as the clear highlight.

The best moments come when the lights are out.

Where other shaky cam formats like The Blair Witch Project rely on distorted movements and cries from a cast of teenagers to induce horror (a rather feeble attempt in this one’s opinion), Paranormal Activity however removes the shaky element most of the time in favor of wide angle lens shots of the couple’s bed room at night as they sleep while at any moment something out of the ordinary could phase one square foot of the screen. It is at these moments where the film truly shines as a more competent form of film horror in a cluttered industry of cheap shocks and over the top gore. Further more, not only does more actually happen than the Blair Witch in both horror and well placed dialogue, but we can see clearly what to be afraid of (the activity, not the ghost, you never do) even when the camera is shaky and the audience can understand it through and through. The paranormal activity in question starts out as nothing more than a flickering light and swaying door before making it’s presence known further like making loud footsteps and noise, among some other really unusual and sinister happenings I won’t spoil for you. Every time these moments occur and become more extreme, I found myself and those around me more fixated on the big screen than usual. Our intentions were to spot the activity as it develops but half the time you won’t, which of course makes it all the more shocking and thus likely to make you jump from your seat. And this is coming from someone who has been borderline completely desensitized in the horror genre.

Rough night?

But this film is not without shame, primarily in the dialogue department during the day. While the two lead characters and brief minor roles are believable enough in their delivery, I have to remind myself that not only are these people being terrorized by a malevolent spirit, they 100% believe it. As a result I find the segments where they talk with friends and each other about other matters rather odd since real people as they’re trying to portray would be entirely fixated, enthralled or even insane over the notion of genuine contact with the other side, let alone whether it’s out to get you or not. The character Micah jokes initially too much about the situation and is, at first not likable as a consequence. Further more at one point during the day time segments, Katie outright says she can feel the entity looking at her while breathing over her shoulder... hair moving and everything. So why is it Micah isn’t phased nor does anything paranormal happen during other mid-days, particularly towards the end?

But I digress since this is most likely me just nitpicking. Most of the dialogue does actually contribute to the plot such as why they don’t simply just move house or use exorcism, instead of just confirming that the characters are feeling scared... which we already know of from the very beginning. Paranormal Activity as it stands is one of the better examples of it’s (sub)genre, relying on building real tension and surprises instead of resorting to throwing the camera in people’s darkened faces. If you’re not a fan of this style of film making before, I doubt it will change your mind but at least you can take comfort in knowing someone did try harder.

Film Review: 2012

2009-11-16T14:04:00.000-08:00

(Directed by Ronald Emmerich, running time 158 minutes)

DISCLAIMER: Before I dive in let me get one thing out of the way: I do not believe in the 2012 predictions nor should any of you. There is no evidence the Mayans ended their calendar for this reason (with no other reason to believe them even if they did) and no scientific evidence to support other predictions of impending cataclysms. It is purely fiction.

John Cusack has had better days in 2012

So we meet again Mr. Ronald Emmerich, back after the ludicrous Independence Day, misunderstood Godzilla, poorly executed Day After Tomorrow and downright confusing 10, 000 BC? And now you’re taking on the next Y2K? Sounds like a recipe for disaster, even if it may be a well executed disaster. Considering all of these films are hardly Oscar Gold, to go into the cinema with expectations beyond “big dumb action flick” only to then complain about it would be on par with visiting France and being surprised and annoyed by all the French people. By no means does that spare this film from a critical lashing, just don’t say I or even the film trailers didn’t tell you so.

It’s 2012, the always tolerable John Cusack plays amateur novelist Jackson Curtis, divorced whose two children live with their mother and cut in step father... *Strains* I’m already annoyed by how cliché this set up really is. Before the exposition can sink in further, on a camping trip Curtis is warned by new age doomsayer Charlie Frost played by Woody Harrelson (arguably the most likable and entertaining character who isn’t even used beyond the first half) of the impending apocalyptic prophecy handed down from the ancient Mayan people among other civilizations. Shortly after Curtis connects the dots including the rich and powerful leaving urbanized areas, disaster abruptly unfolds with California sinking into the ocean in a scene thats as jaw dropping as it is over the top. If that wasn’t enough to raise a few eyebrows, Yellowstone super volcano erupts engulfing most of America while the rest of the world follows suit, all the while Curtis and family journey to China where an ark project is about to be launched saving the soon to be remnants of humanity.

Trust me, this scene is as over the top as it looks.

While this set up appears as a half-baked excuse to travel round the globe just as it goes to pot (and it is), to mix it up we cut to and fro from other would be survivors as they deal with the constant raging chaos. While the spotlight is primarily focused on the US President played by Danny Glover (a’la Morgan Freeman in Deep Impact) and pre-disaster concerned scientist played by Chiwetel Ejiofor (a character who screams “know your place Miiister Siiientist!”), we also get two jazzmen on a damned cruise, a Chinese monk leading his family through the backdoor of the ark and of course random cut aways to famous locations in the process of natural demolition. It’s a nice touch, especially with the ones you know are doomed from the beginning, taking away the cliché foundations the rest of the films rests upon. Others on the other hand do nothing but support it, such as dire European accents, impossibly good plane driving from someone who claims to be a learner and of course the coming together of a once broken family... did I already mention cliché? Dam. All in all the characters shouldn’t annoy you too much... unlike the dim-witted ignorant “douche-bag” teens of Transformers.

You know, for a guy who claims to be a beginner...

But of course you’re not here for the exposition (at one point I said in my head “I don’t care about how you weren’t around for the kids, I just saw the whole Vatican turn over!”), you want destruction on the grandest of scales and if you were disappointed with there lack of in The Day After Tomorrow, this should quell your catharsis. Earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis are part of the main course with plenty of landmarks to knock down and as it stands I wouldn’t have it any other way. When they’re not laying on the exposition, the special effects crew are hammering in as much worldly mayhem as possible to create the ultimate disaster flick. And while you get a good sense of the world actually ending, it’s also not edited in an overly fast pace manner to the point of breaking the sound barrier, allowing the many destructive set pieces to make their full impact you came to see.

Like I said from the very start, this is a film of simple tastes. You go for the mass destruction and you get it... a lot. In fact you would be better off to set your exceptions and standards even lower, because in all honesty it’s well executed and might even surprise you. Like all disaster flicks, the plot is so cliché the word loses all meaning and the dialogue can get hammy at times but at least it doesn’t try to make you laugh or be “down with the kids”. I know it might not be saying much but this is one of the better Ronald Emmerich films, IE a fine example of a movie-goer’s guilty pleasure.

Also stars Amanda Peet, Thandie Newton and Oliver Platt.

Film Review: Public Enemies

2009-07-18T07:00:00.000-07:00

Look its Michael Mann directing another film! And look Johnny Depp is in it! And look again its Christian Bale... AGAIN... Well sounds like a good enough set up right? Those with a knowledge of previous Michael Mann films (to name a few couple; Heat and Collateral) know he’s done his share of fast paced and crime driven while heavy in drama so naturally a film set in the 1930s based on the true story of notorious bank robber John Dillinger, is like bait for this director. Well put it this way... there’s a shoot out in the opening five minutes.

While Johnny Depp is paraded as the role of John Dillinger is every preview know to Mann (ha see what I did there? Forget it), once again with have Christian Bale, fresh from the last multiple blockbuster films as the lesser known FBI agent Melvin Purvis, with the obvious stances as “public enemies” to eachother. But by no means is it all about them, at the same time we’re quickly introduced to other Dillinger cronies and of course the inevitable love interest Billie Frechette, played by Marion Cotillard. So where does this leave them? After a semi-successful prison break, Dillinger is back in town and robbing banks left and right, each in a matter of minutes while Purvis is put on the case but what appears to be a rather slow “by the book” anti-crime agency. Fast forward and we have Dillinger swaying the likes of Frechette is a rather chauvinistic manner... although we have to keep in mind that this is the 1930s and women are still push overs (and in Johnny Depp’s case still would be). Without ruining any of the plot, the film then goes into a tug of war with bank robberies and FBI leads pulled off and hindered by the opposing party leading to what is a rather unconventional climax if you didn’t know much about the real life story.

Beyond the character plot itself, we are given a vintage 1930s backdrop from both the city and country settings conveying a real old modern styled feel you’d come to expect. All the men where brown and black suits and talk fast and all the women are dressed up and buried in make-up, with crudely built cars, oddly shaped rifles and “swinging” soundtracks. Believable setting, check. Believable characters on the other hand? Many people (fangirls) came to see Depp, the actor who while is painted by some (fangirls) as a handsome front man, actually can and has acted well and in all seriousness (fangirls aside) he pulls it off here. Playing a real life person is always tricky, more so if that person has historical visual and audio recordings, but its safe to say that Depp has adjusted his voice accordingly to the character and setting, being well mannered but cocky and a hard ball at times, with the ability to show emotion where its needed, and since its a Mann film its usually when someone has been shot dead. His other cronies are more two dimensional but interesting enough characters in their own right. For example there’s John (again?) “Red” Hamilton, a loyal co-robber and all round hard man, a long with Baby Face Nelson who to put it bluntly is a psychopath who would shot a fleeing civilian just because he not shooting at anything else and thus also making him the screw up! In the case of Billie Frechette on the other hand, you’d think the love interest would be tacked on but no, its kept in moderation and you can feel sympathy for this woman to an extent, particularly towards the end, but is sadly less memorable than the rest of the cast. In terms of shoot outs, well there’s not much to say, they’re hard to screw up in a mainstream film by an established director in the field. While there’s a good ratio of action and drama, one instance in the first half however seems dragged out. While not a total complaint, it breaks flow and fragments what can be a complex plot line if you as such as miss three minutes.

Now on to Christian Bale... He’s become a fickle actor to me since the films that put him on the map, like American Psycho being the best example for this one, but now I’m starting to think he’s coming down with “Nicholas Cage Syndrome”. Don’t act like you don’t know what I’m talking about, like Nicholas Cage once was, Bale seems to be appearing in an awful lot of films recently (more so if you watch the independent), Terminator Salvation only being roughly a mouth old, if even that. As a result, he’s become so established its hard to dive into the story if you can only see Bale and not the character he’s playing. Someone like Depp on the other hand, as well known as he is at least there’s space between his roles. But even if you haven’t seen those other Bale films, there’s another issue I have. Now I know its good for films to avoid being so black and white in characterization but when everyone is getting shot on a regular basis, who’s side am I supposed to be on? While there’s the obvious fact Dillinger and co are bank robbers, the law is not particularly within the law itself at times, with blackmail and beating women coming into an equation at one point. For me this adds realism and no doubt prevents it becoming a cliche case of cops and robbers but being objective about it, bleak could be another description for certain people... although in my view those are the people who shouldn’t be watching this sort of film, Johnny Depp or not...

Public Enemies is one of the better Michael Mann films and stands on its own in the midst of a summer blockbuster onslaught, with the setting providing its unique selling point. If you came expecting a series of violent shoot outs, you won’t be disappointed. If you came for the thrilling plot, you won’t be disappointed. And if you came for Johnny Depp, you won’t be disappointed...

Film Review: Brüno

2009-07-17T14:02:00.000-07:00

Those familiar with the work of Sacha Baron Cohen are also familiar with his three alter-ego stereotypes; Ali G (black-rapper wannabe moron), Borat Sagdiyev (ignorant racist foreigner) and in this highlighted instance, Bruno (flamboyant perverted homosexual). Now all of them off the bat come off as horrible characters bent on shocking and offending... and I wouldn’t have it any other way! While Ali G Indahouse was a conventional comedy flick, Borat’s big screen outing on the other hand was a unique laugh a second mockumentary that surprised even the most high brow of critics, so naturally a Bruno incarnation would be an equal affair of offensive comedy material in real life situations?Well, there’s good news and bad news in the case of Bruno.

The GOOD news is all the in your face comedy and taboo shock value from Borat is retained, only in a different style of character. After a brief (and camp) opening sequence, the flamboyant Austrian fashion (I want to say) critic flaunts his overly out of this world fashion show and his life with his, as he puts “pigmy” lover, a long with a anal sex scene best described as the ZZ Top spinning guitar trick. After crashing a cat walk, his show is cancelled, pigmy gone rogue with Bruno going off to make it big in America. Already you’ll notice the same plot line as Borat but this time his follower is a rather timid assistant Lutz. Despite the similar set up to Borat, its the only, if not the best way to get the unsuspecting public and celebrities pranked in a variety of situations.

And boy there are a good few. If you weren’t put off by the unconventional anal sex in the introduction then what about a real penis flailing around to the beat of techno before light CGI makes the top shout? And I saw this on a cinema sized screen... you could actually feel the mental reactions of the surrounding audience, but of course no one could look away (even the jock guys at the back) because its almost a surreal moment considering this has got to be a first for mainstream cinema, and this is just one scene. Clearly the intention of the film (besides comedy of course) was to take those with any hang ups over homosexuality and hammer the subject matter into their eye-sockets. Without ruining anything to those who have yet to see it, lets just say the ending achieves this in an excellent (if boarder-line suicidal) gay statement leaving a previously overly aggressive testosterone induced southern American in tears.

Other great examples of vintage Sacha’s real life humor include an inappropriate pass at Ron Paul (funny even if you don’t know who that is), a “bitch-fest” with a drill instructor, adopting and parading a African baby in front of a full African-American audience and causing silence and tension with a trio of hunters.

The BAD news is, the majority of the sketches are randomly placed. While Borat went across America under the guise of reporting US topics. In Bruno however, he jumps from point A to B so fast its hard to tell at times where he is and thus who he’s making fun of, which somewhat hinders the illusion of its being a documentary. Secondly the jokes are too far apart, most delivering punch line humor with a large build up while Borat injected humor into even the most mundane of sentences. And of course there’s the simple truth of the subject matter... Now of course many will say they have no problem or nothing against homosexuals but when push comes to shove many of the “in your face” jokes will cause a cringe more than a laugh for some people, the problem being its just hard to tell who they will be. Arguable the humor is so gay it could turn a gay man into a homophobe at times but then of course you remember its just a joke on stereotypes (so forget about it).

Bruno is a solid effort and worthy follow up to Borat, but in all honesty Bruno is far from the superior film. Borat was more original for its time while Bruno has many recycled elements. But of course I don’t want to put down the film, it achieved what is was out to do, causes laughs in inappropriate situations and sticking a giant middle finger up to the nay sayers. Its offensive and cringe worthy but then again thats the whole bloody point and the reason you came to see it in the first place!