Asleep at the Wheel

The Descendants (2011)

2012-01-22T23:51:00.001+08:00

As a significant Alexander Payne fan I'd be lying if I didn't say I was disappointed with The Descendants, his forth feature film and his first since 2006. At least compared to his three previous efforts and especially his last and my favorite, Sideways. I don't really think as a director he is overrated like some do, but maybe his latest film is. Perhaps it is somewhat unfair to do so, but his movies tend to warrant comparison given their similar cues and nuances; all low key stories composed merely with different players and settings. I couldn't really review this one without making them unfortunately, though I tried not to let that overtake the experience too much.

The story initially revolves around Matt King (George Clooney) trying to handle his two daughters after his wife is put into a boat accident induced coma. It is a meandering tale but this is what he (Payne) does after all and that wasn't a problem I had with it. Plus I do always admire his typical laid back technical approach employed here again. The characters are no more or less likable than any of the others in his films either, but perhaps a shallowness does exist with the family a little too obviously despite a brief monologue by Matt at the start of the film, decrying people's attitudes towards others without understanding the full story. The balance of humor and drama is just as - or maybe even more - successful as it was in Payne's other pictures. Unfortunately I just wasn't able to get invested emotionally as I was with those previous films. This is important for truly appreciating an Alexander Payne film I believe and definitely, I was unable to get to the point that you need to be to find The Descendants truly great. It didn't quite move me even though it tries so hard. Therefore I could only find it merely good, but it is not all doom and gloom; the closeness that the Kings experience due to the events in the film is a positive thing.

The good is that it is never really dull and it does improve during the last 30-40 minutes where some of the best moments materialize. Though it is hard to say any one particular scene or scenes stood out as memorable, and I do find it easy to do that with his other films. Without question I thought George Clooney was great - a subtle dressed down rendition of a 'Dad' for the actor worthy of accolades. His two daughters aged ten and seventeen were played as natural as possible by Amara Miller and Shailene Woodley respectively, with only a couple of moments of angst feeling unconvincing. Other performances were fittingly good, particularly Robert Forster as the father-in-law and a much matured Mathew Lillard in a key role.

It seems to come with the territory with such subject matter and I don't have a problem "sitting in somebody's misery", but I'm not going to go overboard on The Descendants on this point because it wasn't an overly depressing film to me by any means. I'm glad there are writers and directors out there intent on showing the disappointment of life as much as the greatness. Perhaps I had decent sized expectations given I rate Payne pretty highly, so it is just a shame it didn't resonate as much as I wanted it too because it was presented in typically warm fashion by the director. A revisit in twelve or so months may yield different emotions - maturity does seem to have that effect.

Top Ten Films of 2011

2012-01-18T12:32:00.000+08:00

10. SENNA

[Full Review]

9. I LOVE YOU PHILLIPMORRIS

Delayed, undervalued and sadly overlooked, Phillip Morris was the best kind of quirky. Short, but smartly paced with great performances fromCarrey and McGregor; it is a shame more rom coms are not as funny or as easy todigest as this. With a script that leaves cringe and cliché behind and employsa successful narration device, Morris is just too colourful and positive tohate – unless you’re a homophobe of course.

8. GET LOW

This was like a great short story (or fable if you will) and was utterly charming. Small and not overly ambitious, it was witty without even trying and the effective drama kept things involving - if Robert Duvall’s singular sublime performance didn’t already. The old-timey-ness of it all is sweetly overwhelming and it almost feels like Coen country, perhaps happening just across the way from Ulysses Everett McGill’s chain gang…

7. THE IDES OF MARCH

[Full Review]

6. TRUE GRIT

The Coen Brothers never seem to put a foot wrong whatever they take on. Grit is fairly traditional type fare for them compared to other, more ‘Coen-verse’ work such as Fargo or Lewbowski. It doesn’t rate as well as their totally original creations then, but something that looks this good can get away with lacking something else – whatever it is. Luckily, Bridges, Damon and the amazing Hailee Steinfeld make it easy to enjoy on repeat viewings.

5. BARNEY’S VERSION

Following the last 30 odd years in the life of a Jewish schmuck – from his POV no less –should surely grow tedious, but this had a likable pace and decent juggling of events big and small, and proved to be an authentic tear-jerker by the end credits. I cannot comment on it as an adaptation, but the victory for me was mainly Giamatti; here he unsurprisingly brings his best game form and if it wasn’t for John Adams, this would make his top 3 best performances yet.

4. SNOWTOWN

[Full Review]

3. DRIVE

Drive had many admirers and an admirable share of loathers. Undeniably destined for cult status, the point wasn’t that it’s all been done before, but that director Refn took on the blueprint and offered it up with his own unique vision. It sits amongst decidedly similar efforts of course – some better, some worse – in the grand scheme of genre, but when the presentation feels as fresh as it did for me, I wasn’t going to let such a tedious gripe spoil the party.

2. MONEYBALL

So another sports film that’s supposedly not about sports? Pitt morphs into Redford mode effortlessly, guiding the film into an old school American quality rarely seen these days in Hollywood, something that an ageing Roy Hobbs would no doubt approve (though any comparisons to The Natural end there). Patient directing and a brilliant script co-written by Aaron Sorkin go a long way, but most surprising was the unlikely chemistry Pitt shared with up-to-the-challenge Jonah Hill. You even saw a bit of baseball, but don’t let that put you off.

1. BLACK SWAN

I had very little doubt about my number one, despite it being released within the first weeks of 2011. Possibly the most interesting director working today, Darren Aronofsky delivers the goods with help from a career defining (and surprisingly mature) tour-de-force lead performance from Natalie Portman. Psychological horror for the ages.

[Full Review]

*********

THE HONOURABLE MENTIONS:

127 Hours, Captain America, Everything Must Go, Pearl Jam 20, Red Dog, Red State, The Reef & Thor.

THE POTENTIALS THAT GOT AWAY:

13 Assassins, Contagion, The Guard, Hesher, Howl, Midnight in Paris, Source Code, Take Shelter, Tree of Life & We Need to Talk About Kevin

*********

Snowtown (2011)

2012-01-03T20:10:00.000+08:00

This is not a film that should or could be easilyrecommended. It has moments of brilliance in it's articulation that all film fans should experience,but it is ultimately about a brutal serial killer and I could not say it is a"must-see" like some other films that are labelled as such; thelauded movies that cross over genre, boundaries and have universal appeal, aswell as being superbly crafted. Snowtown will simply repel certain people toomuch. Blaming weak or uncultured stomachs would be a tad unfair too as thefilm’s major strength is its realism and some will just find it too much tobear. However, this should not take away from director Justin Kurzel's exceptional debut about the exploits of one John Bunting.

Viewed as a work of fiction, it can be consideredone of the best films ever made about a murderer. Viewed as it is; a re-tellingof not-so-long-ago actual events – which cannot be ignored from almost thefirst frame- it is chillingly more impactful, no matter how much the film mayhave taken liberties or skipped over certain aspects of the real crimes. If youare aware this happened, you cannot watch without your mind falling back tothat disturbing fact. Ignorance is possibly bliss in the case of Snowtown then,as knowing a person such as Bunting (played with meticulous malevolence by Daniel Henshall) inhabited a sleepy Adelaide street, isworse than assuming he is just an evil creation similar to Mick Taylor inGreg MacLean’s Wolf Creek. This is where the realism (particularly in theperformances, production design and script), take hold and shapes an Australianfilm deservedly held up alongside ones such as The Boys and Romper Stomper – aconfronting representation of a reality of our society.

Certainly it is not even too insane to view Bunting in the same context asthe insidious Taylor; like a mere distant relative more domesticated and lessflamboyant. But in context, the events in Creek are almost fun compared tothose here. With an amazing, creepy score weaving itself through to the chillingclimax, Snowtown is overall a brilliant manifestation, but extremely intense. The only real criticism remains that the narrative is sometimes too confusing or ambiguous for its own good, making it easy to getsomewhat lost among victims, relatives and time lines.

The Ides of March (2011)

2011-11-26T11:48:00.020+08:00

Not is all as it seems in The Ides of March. What begins as a slick, enjoyable film about Governor Mike Morris’s (George Clooney) campaign to a hopeful, eventual presidency develops into a scandal laden political thriller heavy on thought provoking notions of dignity, loyalty and the ethical conflicts within man. The beauty is, that this forth film for Clooney as director, has successfully brought all those elements together in an extremely mature, stylish and non-convoluted way. Ides is an accomplished film, which harks back to the golden age of 70’s American cinema that Clooney has confessed has always being a major influence.

While less heavy hitting than All the Presidents Men for example, his focus is still the same but smartly allows somewhat more contemporary plot lines to drive his story as the film goes on. The old school ideas of back stabbers, liars, manipulators and the soulless media amongst the political arena are still showcased however in what is ultimately, a simple, but excellently written work.

Clooney is helped by and was lucky enough to assemble a cast to die for, including himself as Governor Morris, an on the surface, seemingly incorruptible nice guy elect until pushed into a corner. Clooney is solid as always moving between likable, threatening and convincing as a presidential candidate (his posters successfully mock the infamous Barrack Obama images). This is not his film however – at least not in the actor sense. I’m not sure what more can be said about Ryan Gosling as his reputation seems to soar these days, but here, playing one half of Morris’s “brains trust”, Stephen, he gives another exceptional lead performance, after coming off the superb genre effort, Drive. As a heavily conflicted character, Gosling is almost hypnotic to watch as his demeanour transforms throughout the film until he reaches the brink of his internal morality battle. On the side you have Paul Giamatti and Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Two of the finest actors of their generation and their great presence on screen are perfect for roles such as this. Though each is given at least one meaty diatribe to sink their teeth into, they do unfortunately appear more in the background, their characters fading out to allow the twists and turns, alongside Gosling’s internal conflict take centre stage. Of the few female roles in Ides, young Evan Rachael Wood, as innocent, but tragic intern, Molly, shines the most. As skilled as she is beautiful, her emotional range is that of someone twice her age.

If the film does rely on great performances somewhat to rise it above the norm, that shouldn’t allow to take away from Clooney’s extremely solid execution as director. With the exception of screwball comedy, Leatherheads, all his films have rendered a maturity not often seen in Hollywood, showcased with great style, impeccable editing and pace. Ides, with its shadowy figures in the hallway, extreme close ups and lingering camera moments amongst a subtle, but suitable score, all give the film a classic feel which may allow it (if worthy – time will tell) to sit fairly comfortably next to the 70’s pictures that inspired it. This is perhaps not the film one expected from Clooney, who no doubt will take on the political sub genre again (or we can hope), given the perceived “on the campaign trail” storyline, but that doesn’t make it any less great. Those hoping for Clooney doing The West Wing may be disappointed though. It’s not going to over work your brain in order for you to keep up, but the writing and performances are determined to have you walk away questioning the conflicts at the heart of the story. Perhaps because of this, and like all good movies, it stays with you after the credits roll. Slick, mature and thought-provoking, The Ides of March is one of Hollywood’s best of the year.

Mastodon - The Hunter (2011)

2011-10-12T22:17:00.015+08:00

Of the newer breed of hard rock/metal bands to emerge in the last decade, Mastodon it seems have an aura around them which grants a unique anticipation whenever a new album is announced. The four enigmatic figures that make up the Atlanta quartet are unique unto themselves as well; extremely charismatic, funny, intelligent and minus chips on their shoulders; they carry an enthusiasm for playing and producing music that rubs off on all that call themselves followers of the band. Their discography (of which 2011’s The Hunter is their fifth official long player, but sixth proper release overall) reflects their attitude and musicianship better than most of their peers. All this combined breeds a group that is massively respected by their contemporaries, fans and critics alike. So after over two years since their proggy behemoth, Crack the Skye was released, and much discussion regarding the band’s musical direction, Hunter is out in the world and ultimately, it is possibly the best indicator of where Brann, Brent, Troy and Bill are with their skills and vision as well as serving as an almost justification for their refusal to repeat themselves. Sprawling concept album ideas are on hold this time; tight, self-contained tracks with plenty of chest hair are the order of the day.

Personally, I find calling Mastodon’s direction since and including 2006’s Blood Mountain ’weak’ or ‘soft’ as some have, is a little precious and self-serving. Understanding that yes, this was a band that by 2004 had released two albums and a compilation of early material that defined and converted a new wave of fans to extreme “sludge metal” (peaking with arguably their most valued work to date, Leviathan), does not necessarily suggest that their more hard rock orientated approach nowadays should not be held on the same pedestal. Is The Hunter metal? In its purest form, no, not really. Is it heavy? Yes - at least when it wants to be. In the end it’s proving easier to be disappointed than it is to stretch your boundaries and in the case of this new release, acknowledge, understand and appreciate what the band is willing to do to evolve their sound. I won’t disrespect an ideal or direction from somebody if it’s done with passion and talent like in the case with Hunter. Plus I’m far too old to hold it against a band because ‘Curl of the Burl’ will reach a wider audience due to it becoming a (potential) radio staple despite once producing such trudging heaviness like ‘March of the Fire Ants’ for example. Clinging onto what defines “underground” and refusing to accept something good because it doesn’t fit into some conceited notion is lost on me. I’ve grown up, matured, evolved my tastes and moved on. On Hunter, Mastodon seem to have as well, and once the layers of the album reveal itself after several listens, calls of compromise towards them is a laughable offence in my humble opinion.

I admit since discovering them in 2005 after hearing the track, ‘Seabeast’, I may be a tad bias in my view on them, having garnered a distinctive amount of respect reserved for only those who leave the deepest impression. But enough ranting, it’s onto the songs themselves. When Hunter opens with the almost evil sounding ‘Black Tongue’, the crispness of the production is like a punch in the face. Have they ever sounded this pristine? When you hire a pop/hip-hop producer (namely Mike Elizondo), it’s no surprise, even if the idea itself already has some fans balking. Mastodon deserve to sound this good though. The gigantic riff that swaggers through the opening track earns the right to polish – loud enough to level buildings. The instant classic (and first single) that follows, ‘Curl of the Burl’, is an audacious addictive rock feat for the band. Brann Dailor suggested that Hunter was more focused on groove; ‘Burl’ is a thick, groove stew. ‘Blasteroid’ and ‘Octopus Has no Friends’ are headed for fan favourite status as Hind’s guitar wizardry blasts its way through the verses and as becomes clear through the rest of the disc, the vocals (provided by Hinds, Sanders and Dailor throughout) are a major breakthrough. For long-time fans, hearing some of the vocal harmonies on these tracks (as well ‘Stargasm’ and the 50’s B-Grade inducing ‘Bedazzled Fingernails’) is a minor revelation. Mountain and Skye showed that despite it being the weakest arsenal in their cannon, vocally everyone is challenging themselves to be able play want they want. The singing is sometimes so jaw droppingly good for them, calls of studio trickery are abound. Personally it's fair to say some things may have come into play, but I will give the band the benefit of the doubt (and especially Sanders) that they have genuinely improved immensely.

As the album continues on through its 13 tracks, the level of consistency starts to become clear. It’s hard to fault any of the songs despite the varied styles being employed. ‘Stargasm’ is possibly the pick of the bunch with its spacey syths under the decidedly melancholy chorus juxtaposed amongst the chugging riff of the verses. The title track is the albums closest link to 2009’s Skye. A touching meditation by Hinds of his brothers untimely death, it’s simple lyrics and epic rock construction make it a highlight with fittingly, possibly Hind’s best solo ever put to wax. From then on, the more meat and potatoes additions appear with ‘Dry Bone Valley’ and ‘Thickening’ proving to be, if not overly exceptional themselves, solid heavy rock tunes that once again, drip with an addictive quality that seems to cover all of Hunter. ‘Spectralight’ is the closest song that harks back to the ‘sludge’ era and is a complete assault via Dailor’s pummelling drums and the twin attack of Melvin’s inspired guitar fuzz. Added to the intensity, is Neurosis lead singer, Scott Kelly, who provides most of the vocals here. ‘Creature Lives’ is the clear oddity that while it sticks out considerably amongst the band’s repertoire, the song itself is a wonderful inclusion and cements their infallible quirky nature. The album closes fairly calmly with ‘The Sparrow’, an almost instrumental, layered to reach a neat crescendo.

On the surface, this is a Mastodon like they’ve never sounded before, but pure in that it is unmistakeably them and ultimately, it is not really that much of a departure if you follow the band and their often revealed inspirations. Not many bands can truly be proud of turning the corner, making something for themselves that is as every bit enjoyable as it is technically proficient and not lose their passion. It’s a bit hard to explain, but while some will cry foul that there is nothing extreme enough to frighten you're parents, Hunter sounds like a band who’s found their niche, is happy where they’re at yet still striving to create interesting music and challenging their ability as songwriters. If this band has any commercial success agendas besides that, they’ve certainly got me fooled. I’ll wait a while yet before I start casting stones for such a thing anyway. Credit where credit is due and The Hunter is an exhibit for the court that Mastodon is ready to take over the world of Hard Rock – and so they should.

Senna (2011)

2011-08-13T19:37:00.006+08:00

A good documentary should engage the audience regardless of whether they have a knowledge or passion for its subject matter. Senna is a classic example of this, as your interest in Formula One racing or Senna himself is not a prerequisite to find this excellently crafted film absorbing, compelling and moving. With the blessing of the Senna family, director Asif Kapadia gives us an entertaining insight into the man, the drama and politics of the sport exclusively through on and off track archival footage (some extremely rare) supported by various voice over with out a talking head in sight. The structure of the film is not an overly conventional and traditional one, but in hindsight, was the best possible presentation to allow us to be transfixed at the saga that was Ayrton Senna’s F1 career up until his death in 1994.

Beginning in Senna’s youth and following his passion for go-karts, it is made clear he was not a product of Brazil’s overwhelming poverty and at an early age his well to do parents easily supported and encouraged his passion; his unyielding belief in religion and a protective God was also instilled early on, and would remain a driving force of his outlook throughout his life. Coupled with a remarkable competitive spirit, Senna’s ascension into F1 greatness was merely a formality, though his first years were a shaky transition. Having to learn to accept and deal with the politics of the sport and once they become team mates, the determination of current No.1 driver in the world, Alain Prost, who perhaps was subject to nepotism from then-F1 boss and fellow countryman; Jean-Marie Balestre. The bitter rivalry that developed between them over many years is the main focus for the majority of the film, particularly during the fight for the championships which seemed to always be determined by the results in the final race of the season for several years in a row.

Using voice over mainly from Ayrton’s sister, a select few commentators and writers from the era are used as well as then-McLaren boss, Ron Dennis, for insight into specific events. Somewhat surprisingly, no actual drivers from Senna’s time are present besides what is seen in the footage which includes several moments of drama at driver meetings, in team’s garages and of course, on TV interviews. The latter particularly displays Ayrton's sense of humour and undeniable cheekiness when it comes to the fairer sex. Above all though, his belief in God and unmatched competitiveness is at the forefront of the examination that is Senna.

Though with the drama that unfolds during the course of the races shown being engaging enough, the film’s technical achievements become an excellent tool in the suspense and emotional power of the overall final product. Antonio Pinto’s bright, but almost “murder mystery” toned score resonates during races and moments of tension superbly, not once becoming an intrusion, but always rigged to impact a moment to the fullest. The editing of the many hours of video footage (including several Senna family home videos) is painstakingly done, with no inclusion feeling unnecessary. Regarding the on track action, the several times we’re taken on board Senna’s car during races, the sense of speed is overwhelming; giving any non-followers of the sport a taste of the exhilaration that induces it’s fans. Suitably, Kapadia strips back the voices when we get to the fateful weekend of San Marino in 1994. Leaving us to merely watch as discussions about safety and Senna’s tension about the race unfold like a fly on the wall, the build up is impressive with emotional resonance as the film reaches its conclusion.

Much like last year’s American: The Bill Hicks Story, Senna takes a unique approach to showcasing a life. Not content to show numerous well known names giving their view, the director has left it to those who knew him best, and Senna himself, to guide us through the career of this unique individual. His personal life is, on the surface, only shown minimally, but as the film goes on, it becomes clear that what we see in Senna is almost the perfect example of what the man was, nothing more, nothing less. If you have an interest in motor sport, this is possibly as good as it gets but for all others, it still remains a journey about passion, determination and tragedy worth taking.

RocknRolla (2008)

2011-06-13T21:41:00.002+08:00

Guy Ritchie’s first two films can arguably be called instant classics with his unique flair and (some what) originality earning him titles such as “the British Tarantino”. Though both Lock, Stock & Smoking Barrels and Snatch remain an acquired taste (and strictly “boys club” filmmaking), it’s hard to deny they gave a shot in the arm to mainstream cinema and made gangsters cool again. Unfortunately, Ritchie lost his way slightly after the success of these films; becoming a family man possibly changed his perspective slightly, but a woeful decision to make a film with his then-wife, the acting deprived Madonna, had him labelled as quickly as the “king of cool” to having lost it. Coming to his senses, Ritchie went back to the well and gave us (the hardly seen and critically paned) Revolver. However bad it may have been, that film seem to provide the director with renewed passion and he followed with RocknRolla before helming the entertaining blockbuster, Sherlock Holmes.

RnR brings us closer to Snatch than any other film of Ritchie’s and even though it is not as exuberant as the former (nor as intelligent as Lock, Stock), it’s a fair – but clunky - effort, that shows that he still has something to offer in the genre it feels he seemed to almost invent himself. We’re in similar territory in that the story revolves around gangsters and crims (both British and Russian), involving a junkie rock and roll star and a very important painting. As much as the similarities with Snatch abound, RnR doesn’t feel like a sequel or overly a retread however. The humour remains (though not as funny), as does the violence (not as impactful) and even a voice over by Mark Strong’s Archie ala Jason Statham’s Turkish is present, it still feels distanced from the director’s explosive first features. Perhaps though, that is more about the actual quality of this movie. We do feel like we're in a whole new Ritchie universe, but the soundtrack, editing and all round wit is lacking in comparison.

Snatch and Lock, Stock were wild, fresh and at the very least; not boring. Ritchie has certainly changed his approach visually with his recent films, and while some scenes in Snatch felt inspired, RnR has some that feel mere experimental and others that just seem lazy. It’s still uniquely Ritchie, but far less impressive. Same goes for the script. Minor one or two scene characters that were worthy of cult figure status in his previous flicks are present here too, but there is something about them that is just, well, not as cool. And when they disappear out of the film, they really do – you’ve forgotten about them and your left with an ensemble of recognizable main actors populating what feels like a crowded film at times. Cool names such as One Two, Mumbles, Handsome Bob and Fred the Head are thrown around so quickly, they never stick or grant them the privilege of someone donning their moniker at a Halloween party and getting recognised. Hatchet Harry, Boris the Blade and Bullet-Tooth Tony these guys ain’t. This all causes the film too feel to muddled, long and only if you’re able to make it through the first 70 minutes clinging to actors such as Tobey Kebbell, Tom Wilkinson, Idris Elba and Strong keeping you interested, the final 30 is actually worth while. With a neat twist and a surprising exuberance to it, the final act almost feels as good as anything Ritchie has done so far and a tease of what could have been.

Gerard Butler as the central, curiously named, One Two, plays it well enough, but with so many players meandering through the mob deals and chase for a missing painting it’s hard to acknowledge a standout. All are decent with only Strong and Kebbell rising above their respected peers. Tom Wilkinson is extremely fun spouting various cockney barbs (“There's no school like old school, and I'm the fucking headmaster”), but he’s no Brick Top and inclusions of good actors such as Jeremy Piven and Thandie Newton feel wasted. I suppose it is not fair to hold Ritchie up so closely to his previous (though similar) films now and despite all the negatives, RnR is about as close to another great gangster romp from Ritchie as we could have hoped for and is at times, quite enjoyable. Plus with a cheeky final scene hinting at a balls-to-the-wall sequel, one can only hope Ritchie will line up his players somewhat more perfectly after feeling them out again here. If anything, I will embrace a follow up if it means the imminently watchable Kebbell’s Johnny Quid will be at the forefront.

Machete Maidens Unleashed! (2011)

2011-05-14T22:07:00.004+08:00

Mark Hartley, director of Not Quite Hollywood, presents us with a companion piece written, edited and presented almost the exact same way as his outstanding Aussie doco. As with NQH, he delves into B-grade exploitation, this time focusing on the Pilipino industry during the late 60’s, 70’s and 80’s. The country's pioneers of the extremely low budget drive-in efforts are showcased respectfully, but ultimately it focuses from when legendary shlock-king Roger Corman’s New World Pictures got involved early on.

Interviews with Corman, directors such as Joe Dante & John Landis as well as healthy contributions from several actors involved including Sid Haig are insightful and fun. If NQH exposed the many Aussie B-grade movies that defined the local industry, the entertaining comments and vast amount of clips from these Pilipino films in Maidens is a minor revelation. Ultra B-grade to the point of making the films showcased in NQH seem almost high brow, classic exploitation films such as Island of Blood, The Big Doll House and TNT Jackson are revealed as being a major part of the drive-in “genre” with Corman assessing that getting involved, meant he “could make a bigger film with less money”. The significance of these films being made and set amongst the jungles of the country prove integral. Indeed during the 1972 takeover by Ferdinand Marcos, when a strict martial law/curfew was enforced (whom himself still granted full use of the military on the sets), the relevance is even more interesting.

Starting with the gore filled efforts of the pre-Corman involvement, it moves on to showcase such stars as the amazing Pam Grier and Gloria Hendry and give great insight into the feelings of many of the female casts about these films. The “women in prison” genre after all, proved to be a major focus until after the Marcos domination in 1972, action and war took over. Points of note also include how the emergence of black exploitation not set in the United States, was quite pivotal with films such as Savage and TNT Jackson. A brief feature on a quite unique James Bond type midget star, Wang Wang, a distinctive section on Apocalypse Now and the demise of the exploitation film are explored by the end. Boobs, Gore and Stunts in equal amounts are featured quite heavily throughout of course much like the director’s first feature.

A well put together effort as you’d expect from Hartley, that while I only saw the cut down hour long TV version it is ultimately a fitting side piece to NQH. Perhaps it will make a nice Blu-ray extra on that film, but certainly if you enjoyed the former, it’s worth checking out for more of the same, with merely a different setting and a totally new set of talking heads and insight.

Black Swan (2010)

2011-02-01T20:13:00.004+08:00

Director Darren Aronofsky is a unique beast in Hollywood. A filmmaking auteur, his five films have been wildly different but always exceptionally challenging and distinctive. With Black Swan, a remarkable experience in psychological horror, his work continues to evolve in this way. In short, a young New York ballet dancer, Nina Sayers (Natalie Portman), is given the chance to live her dream portraying the “Swan Queen” in a performance of Swan Lake under the demanding, watchful eye of revered director Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel). Overwhelming pressure from the ever growingly closer performance, her obsessive mother and guilt of stepping into the place of Beth Macintyre (Winona Ryder), a once beloved performer now shunned by Leroy, takes its toll and Nina slowly descends into hallucination and extreme behaviour. What becomes clear early on is that the film’s narrative is Swan Lake, making Black Swan, the movie, an achievement perhaps to overwhelming to comprehend after just one viewing.

Aronofsky settles into a familiar Wrestler-Esq pace, with slick cutting and handheld camera leading us into an authentic atmosphere of the ballet world, each actor convincing as literal dancers (no doubt some are real professionals) more than just comfortably belonging in background. Portman herself is truly convincing in the role of her lifetime. Plenty can be said for the excellent support players (including Mila Kunis and a perfectly cast Barbara Hershey), but Aronofsky is an actor’s director after all, and his leads all seemed to have offered little resistance to the remarkable challenge he sets for them (four of them have received best actor Oscar Nominations). Portman is no exception. Having always viewed her as talented but with perhaps an unfortunate young adult stigma, in Swan she finally transcends beyond that with a role equally draining emotionally and physically. It’s an almost surprisingly exceptional performance reaching extremes of madness and menace.

What shouldn’t be denied about Black Swan is that it is a horror film. Long suffering fans of the genre are subdued with examples these days of usually pointless exercises in gore exploitation or cheap thrills designed to shock, but always fail miserably. Rewards do come to the patient however and the film teeters between genuine scares and skin crawling imagery, like all good horror should. Some moments are so disturbing, that mixed amongst the grace and intensity of the ballet, I wonder when was such a glorious example of the genre last achieved? Recalling and clearly influenced by the earlier films of David Cronenberg and Giallo maestro Dario Argento, Aronofsky has fortunately not shied away from snapped limbs, peeling skin and body manipulation.

Amongst all the well achieved suspense; using mirrors and doppelgangers to freak us out, lays the sublime cinematography. Tight close ups are the order of the day, including during the dance sequences which adds even more authenticity. The finale of the performance and all that transpires is remarkably fluid with a certain moment with Nina that had me picking my wannabe-director jaw off the ground. The final winning element is the enveloping score from long time Aronofsky collaborator, Clint Mansell. Embracing the orchestral moments of Swan Lake amongst original material, the increasingly dreadful vibe of Nina’s world would not be so intense if not for Mansell’s work.

Swan is a darkly sexual, extraordinary film that I couldn’t recommend enough, though it does come with a warning; it is not for the faint hearted. What I love the most is that the truly unique Aronofsky has continued to produce work that is challenging and flat out technically brilliant, allowing his influences to seep in as if only to say, I love these kinds of films, and here’s my drop in the bucket. What he has actually given us is one of the best horror films in years and another performance that raises the bar for intensity. Best director working today? Here is merely just another exhibit for the courts.

Retrospective #2: Dirty Harry (1971)

2011-01-08T12:07:00.003+08:00

Dir. Don Siegel

"When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher's knife and a hard on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross"

(spoilers within)

My Dad loves Clint Eastwood. I assume most men of his generation probably do though. He always seemed to me like a tougher, funnier and cooler version of John Wayne (ironic then that he was one of many stars in the running for the lead role here). At least the characters he portrayed anyway. His smart arse, gruff, take-no-shit persona (exemplified as Harry Callahan) was/is a blueprint for the modern action star. The Alpha male. So thanks to my Dad I grew up watching many of his films. To me what they actually were about was kind of a blur when I was a pre-teen. It was either a Western or a cop movie. Of course too, home viewing in the 80's was all about cropped pan and scan versions for the VHS/TV market. Though I enjoyed watching many films this way, it’s funny when you don’t know what your missing (Widescreen? 35mm? These were words I had no concept of until at least 14). Considering now too, thanks to DVD, we are all presented with films the way they are meant to be seen - most of the time, and take it for granted.

My point is that when films started making their way onto widescreen editions on VHS etc, my cinema brain went into overload trying to re-watch all the films I loved pan and scanned in their original design. Case in point, Dirty Harry. A film of Clint's I always liked, but figured it was just a run of the mill exercise with a great central character. Once I saw director Don Siegel's full cut however, I realised how much of a great film it was, and how unique it would have been back in '71. Pre-emptive to the stark quality of urban American cinema in the 1970's, something Mean Streets took too another level soon after, Harry became for me one of my first appreciations of things being shot on film too. The framing and exquisite widescreen photography of San Francisco gave the film a completely new dimension. The zooming out of Scorpio on the roof in the intro and the extraordinary scene on the football field are classic examples of just how much such a thing can make a difference. The film is a major technical achievement that I think many are unaware of. Unfortunately, I have not yet seen this on Blu-ray, but rest assured it would be a mini-celebration when I do.

At its core though, still is the story, the script, Eastwood's Harry Callahan and probably the most underrated feature of the movie, Andy Robinson’s portrayal of the film’s serial killer, Scorpio. One of the best bad guys in cinema history. Robinson, the unlikely British thesp candidate for such a role, excels in bringing a human quality to the killer. Because despite his menace, his vulnerabilities exist in plain sight. He may be evil, but he is also a fool and when faced with the unyielding Callahan, his cowardice is brought to the forefront. To me, he was the perfect foil to the stoic Harry. Perfect for the audience too, as he garners no sympathy, making it even more satisfying when he finally meets his end at the hand of Harry's .44 magnum. Plus his shriek when stabbed in the leg is unforgettable.

Then of course, there is Callahan. Eastwood's intensity when on duty is only matched by his almost laugh-out-loud, cool demeanour when relaxed. When asked by a male physician to remove his pants after Harry declines to have them cut off, he replies, "You can turn your back if you’re embarrassed". This kind of dry wit remains classic and even though the sequels eventually become a parody of what made this film so good, Callahan’s zingers never disappoint throughout them all. The humour in general in the film is mischievous (witnessing the beginnings of a threesome while looking out for Scorpio; "You owe it to yourself to live a little, Harry") but always countered with some sudden suspense or action. The infamy of the "Do you feel lucky?" speech still holds its power too, though only when it is repeated to Scorpio at the end with added vehemence. The disappointing Gran Torino will always resemble a pseudo-Dirty Harry film in some ways to me because of how much Eastwood does dwell back into such a similar character.

Finally, the music needs to be mentioned. One of the best originals of the movie's era, the jazz fusion/psychedelic rock sound scapes feel not just ahead of their time, but a classic example of melding score and visuals to create a truly urban vibe. Its influence on similar films and TV is undeniable. Filled with great little scenes to break up the seriousness of the suspense, alongside it’s exceptional direction, this film just does not bore me on any level no matter how many times I watch it. Is it too inappropriate to say it's a guy thing too? Not in a steroid explosion Expendables kind of way either. Dirty Harry is loaded with testosterone - another trait of the films in its decade, but the kind that seems to come from just being cool.

Blue Valentine (2010)

2010-12-31T00:11:00.014+08:00

Set in an unknown, unimportant time and place, Blue Valentine is the story of a couple, Dean (Ryan Gosling) and Cindy (Michelle Williams). As well as their young daughter, Frankie (Faith Wladyka). The story, in the direct sense is about their first meeting, their falling in love, marriage and eventual divorce. However, the film never plays it that straight. And it doesn’t always limit itself to questioning only their relationship. It goes beyond one couple's existence, inevitably analysing the notion of what love can mean between any two people.

Beginning in (their) present day, Valentine cuts back and forth between past and present deftly, juxtaposing the beginnings of the characters and their relationship alongside exploration of their current situation. Straight away, it seems we as an audience should celebrate that such a narrative is not sullied here. It may dwell in one place for a short while, but soon enough, a corresponding previous memory is upon us, without warning or patronizing title cards. I would say you have to try to keep up, but ultimately the film is so well versed in its own structure, that I do not have too. Everything is obvious and it is perfectly timed. The remarkable editing seems to exist to merely complement us. A scene where Dean notices Cindy for the first time for example, is ended suddenly, only to reveal its importance many scenes later in her back-story. The subtle achievement of this moment is surely one wannabe directors will consistently admire.

The film making style is at one with the material, never overly intrusive or jarring, but devastatingly close. A fly on the wall account of the burgeoning and demise of a relationship. Simultaneously. One of it's strengths, besides the performances of our two leads, is the latter realisation. Mainly because though a handheld approach is the chosen display, we are not in mile-a-minute Paul Greengrass territory; we’re simply there. In the midst of the turmoil and indeed, the happiness of these people, it takes full advantage of the technique. As the film goes on, this typically modern day approach becomes essential, almost profoundly necessary.

Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams give performances that can only be described as remarkable, disturbing and uber-real. To question if real life experience had come into play for their research is declaring the obvious. They are almost too real as the battered, once intensely in-love couple. Flawed and perfect like all of us. Thus, the achievement of Valentine lies just as much on their shoulders as it does the young director. You cannot fake what happens in this film and anybody who has ever experienced a long-term relationship, whether in a positive or negative way, will no doubt have some scenes resonant uncomfortably. What is ad-lib and what is script essentially becomes a blur, only leaving you knowing that in both ways, it comes from a real life experience, and not something Hollywood would ever bank on.

To try to give an overall impression of the movie, intensity in every scene seems to be the goal, and Blue Valentine is not for the faint hearted - even for drama addicts. And after the flamboyant end credits roll, you could walk away filled with the satisfaction of what films still have the power to do. Nevertheless, you could also possibly be scarred, or perhaps left to dwell on memories you did not want to disturb. Maybe you would walk away hating these people and the film, cursing the realism of (director) Derek Cianfrance’s world. If, in 2010, a film can do all these things and remain still, at its core, a remarkable piece of art, it deserves praise from me.

Green Zone (2010)

2010-12-12T00:17:00.008+08:00

Set almost directly after the US invaded Iraq in the search of WMDs in 2003, Green Zone follows Military Chief Roy Miller (Matt Damon) as he leads his squad through an anarchic Middle East environment heroically looking for said weapons. Constantly coming up with “a donut” at the end of his missions, he becomes increasingly suspicious of how the intelligence he is receiving is leading him to dead ends. With the help of a paranoid Iraq citizen, a CIA agent (Brendan Gleeson) and a strong desire to make a difference in the face of war, he takes on a risky path to the truth.

Despite the talent behind it, on the surface, Green Zone still sounds a bit clichéd. A potentially harsh call as it aims to be an action film first, and serious political commentary second. So yes, we still have a slightly predictable “bad guy” and plot development, but they are clichés this type of film cannot exist without, where they ultimately sit, barely noticeable, in a very mature-minded film. Damon - through a stellar script, takes control of his character, and dominates his (almost permanent) time on screen. He does feel familiar given the previous collaborations between director and star, but regardless, it is a convincing and dramatic performance. Support from Gleeson and Greg Kinnear, as US Admin puppet, Clark Poundstone, is particularly good. Serving as Miller’s contact/interpreter “Freddy”, Khalid Abdalla, is a honest portrayal of a desperate Iraqi as one could hope for from Hollywood.

The movies true strength is mainly derived from Brian Helgeland’s very intelligent script, which most rewarding of all, feels authentic. Dialogue is razor sharp and, as expected, all very “military“. Not in the sense of technical jargon, but more that its delivery and the actual words feel just right. Obviously crucial when dealing with real world settings like here. In its typical Greengrass style, the film is full throttle, the score used to great effect alongside some of the jaw-dropping editing. With this film, you are in; two hours later you are out - left to deal with the sensory overload. The fat trimmed to the point that no scene feels pointless, the story constantly moving forward via video game velocity. The epic foot chase finale is as bewildering as it is intense. Greengrass’ forte is at the hilt with it. The manic, handheld style of the director alienates many, but it can be argued that to match the intensity of such situations, it is the best approach. Given it has virtually taken over the contemporary action genre as well, trying to embrace it can still go both ways.

Nevertheless, and much as previous films made about Vietnam for example, a political stance begs to be made. Similar to The Bourne Supremacy (another Damon/Greengrass collaboration), and against the usual Hollywood approach, the director allows the action to simmer off at the end, leaving poignancy to finish the film. Green Zone’s statement is hardly subtle, and won’t impress supporters of the war depicted on screen, but overall, it is an action film primarily aiming to entertain. This it does, proving to be one of the best contemporary efforts in recent years.

American: The Bill Hicks Story (2010)

2010-10-24T09:23:00.003+08:00

After want seems like years of build up, a documentary about legendary comic, Bill Hicks, has been finished and out into the world. Often insightful and obviously funny, it should be said that American is in no way a fence sitting approach to Bill Hicks the man, or his legacy. This is a doco made by people who loved him for people who loved him.

Its presentation is a unique one. Besides during the bookends of the film, there is no talking heads here, being entirely voice over for the majority by the handful of people included, with most of the story being told via Bill’s older brother, Steven Hicks, friends Dwight Slade and Kevin Booth. The talking presides over photos, home video and plenty of photo animation that is exceptionally done. This approach is novel at first as we learn about Bill‘s childhood, early teen years and his first open mic experiences etc, but it threatens to become repetitive. Just in time though, the film changes gear to include a lot of Bill’s routines that breaks up the pace nicely making the film eventually considerably engrossing. However, in my opinion, non-Hicks fans will probably struggle to get through. It wasn’t made to get an Oscar nomination for example. The film’s greatest benefit is that it will appeal to established fans the most.

Perhaps a collection of celebrity inspired talking heads would prove to be a more acute documentary about Bill, but this film is probably as good as a fan could want (besides, the brief It‘s Just a Ride from a few years ago provides that). American is, however, without doubt a hundred minutes or so that delves into Bill Hick’s life in a way that has not been done before. It provides insights into his youth and his feelings about drugs and his eventual diagnosis of cancer, without all that celebrity baggage. It is a refreshing approach. Unfortunately, a problem exists within it's method that Bill himself is never shown in an interview in the film. All we see of Hicks is his (some very rare, some not) routines and photos. Obviously a clear decision by the filmmakers, it seems to me a possible mistake not including reactions and/or opinions on moments in time from the man. Luckily everybody else involved prove extremely honest in his or her reflections, but perhaps that missing component is what prevents this unique doco becoming a definitive work. Also, the thoughts of Bill’s father are clearly missed, himself passing away just as filming began.

Ultimately, my final judgement is bias given I am a big fan of Bill Hicks and his material. I can say that as a documentary it is slightly lacking, despite providing a sensitive record of his extremely short life. Though not claiming this film provides everything one craves from the idea of a documentary on Bill Hick’s life; it remains informative and highly recommended for fans, but perhaps merely a curiosity for non-ones.

The Town (2010)

2010-10-17T16:41:00.012+08:00

The Town deserves to be called very good, being extremely well constructed and consistent in almost every aspect. It’s far from being the perfect genre flick, and perhaps with a bit more experience under his belt, director Ben Affleck in future will be able to iron out the kind of things that prevent it from truly being brilliant. Or rather, expand on others, because while it is severely entertaining, it spreads itself from action piece to heavy drama without truly capitalizing on either. His striking potential (as director) is completely cemented with The Town however, which followed his acclaimed debut, Gone Baby Gone.

The film everyone seems to beg to compare it too is Michael Mann’s 1995 masterwork, Heat. There are a few moments that homage that film, but overall, there seems to be little in common besides the central figures being bank robbers; the epic nature of Heat is also virtually absent. The Town, despite the action, does feel less a traditional heist movie than an urban drama anyway, merely set amongst the lifestyle. That’s a good thing, separating itself and becoming fairly unique - regardless of the clichéd nature of some of the story. The Boston location probably helps in this regard too. From an editing point of view, it is really well balanced and tight with it‘s set pieces. Think the last two Bourne films, but dropped down a few notches. In fact, no scene really feels out of place or wasted. Affleck is on his way to being to Boston what Scorsese or Allen is to New York too. Just like in his debut film, the city and it's people are showcased with gritty love. The film has a truly urban feel.

Co-stars Jeremy Renner and Rebecca Hall were great; Renner particularly convincing, and cameo appearances by veteran Pete Postlethwaite were excellent. John Hamm, as the lead FBI agent, is a surprising asset. Shedding his Don Draper persona (from TV’s Mad Men) with ease while given some cracking dialogue, Hamm definitely stamps his presence on the movie. Ben Affleck I felt however, was pretty impressive. His best performance since perhaps Good Will Hunting. Most of all though, every character is realised very well. The crew especially - you didn't question the authenticity of these guys; they were hardened 20-something crims and you believed it.

The flaws are notable but didn’t bring the film down for me - for some they will. Despite being a genre institution, predictable is a word that can definitely apply to the overall story, but mainly it was the central relationship between Affleck and Hall, that lacked believability considering the circumstances, that hurts the film the most. The motivation from both sides are muddled here, and even though it did service the story well, it also led to an ending that was…well, the schmaltz really was a bit much for me personally. Think "chick flick" territory. The final set piece was possibly slightly underwhelming too, even though it’s clear to me, the robberies themselves are not meant to be the focus. The action direction regardless was first rate. Affleck’s robust direction throughout, keeping the story tight and streamlined, along with engaging dialogue and great performances make The Town worth your time, if the blueprint is your type of thing of course.

The Magician (2005)

2010-09-30T23:05:00.002+08:00

To paraphrase leading Australian critic, David Stratton, “Not everyone is going to like the idea of spending an evening at the cinema with Ray”. Ray being of course being the protagonist , the hitman, that grinning guy on the posters and basically the fellow we are locked shoulder to shoulder with ‘home video’ style for almost the entire length of The Magician. To count disliking Ray to the point of not being able to enjoy or even watch the film is not wrong, but rather maybe missing out on what an accomplishment this film is for it’s young writer/director/star, Scott Ryan. Fresh out of film school and made with merely three thousand dollars of his own money, Ryan’s Magician is an excellent example of what can be achieved when you have passion and ability.

Most of the script appears improvised so it‘s hard to decide whether it‘s a work of great writing or performance, but regardless, what is said in the film is it’s strong point. Ryan’s snappy dialogue and matter-of-fact observations, delivered mostly direct to camera, even rivals much of Tarantino’s glossed pop culture oscar winner, Pulp Fiction. Of course, Ryan clearly retains an influence from the banana chinned boy wonder. Whether it is discussing Clint Eastwood’s appearance (or not) in The Dirty Dozen, sleeping next to another bloke with no pants on or the moral dilemma of Wayne Carey banging his best mate’s missus, Ray is philosophical, funny as hell and never short for words. It took me a while to get into the flow, but once I did, I was hooked and the curiosity of what was to become of Ray’s in-toe victim, Ben became overwhelming.

With well over eighty minutes shot, the editing (done by three separate contributors all up) deserves a lot of credit especially for making the last half of the film so interesting. As we’re looking through nom de plume Max’s (our narrative device of a man so intrigued by Ray, he wants to follow him through his day to day) camera the whole time, I do have my reservations in saying this was well directed. Completely handheld, the film comes off as very loosely structured. At the same time however, it is hard to deny the film is all the more convincing because of it. Perhaps this was a deliberate approach to make it seem shot by an amateur more than it actually is. This is a character driven piece, and drawing us into Ray’s world via this style is possibly a stroke of genius in hindsight.

Overall, it’s not just the entertainment value that makes The Magician a winner, because like him or not, Ryan’s performance as Ray is excellent, but it proves what can be achieved without major funding in this country. Certainly it took a few decent producers who got their hands on it and do an ace job of getting it on our cinema screens, but considering how often people complain about the ‘type’ of films Australia comes out with, a lot of them must be missing the talent that is right under their noses.

The Host (2006)

2010-09-20T22:43:00.005+08:00

The Host is without a doubt expertly directed, and the star of the film is probably the most interesting creature creation since Stan Winston’s Kothoga (from The Relic), but it never really impressed as much as the films it’s being compared to. These being such iconic fare as Jaws and The Thing. Maybe the hype machine had too much influence, but I think because it is in essence more a drama than a creature-feature, means that it doesn’t quite reach such similar or stellar company. It is it’s own victim in that sense, because while it is a good film, it holds little to offer on repeat viewings like those films do. It won’t let you settle into a specific mood for example. Describing the film is an issue in itself. Director Bong Joon-Ho probably summed it up best himself when he said that it is less a monster movie and more a film about a kidnapping, where the kidnapper just happens to be a mutant amphibian.

Stripped to it’s core, The Host is about the importance of family bond and how that bond can shine through during crisis. An already struggling unit, our family - the Parks - must deal with the unthinkable: The youngest and brightest spark in their clan has been taken, presumed dead, not by a man, but by something that just shouldn’t exist. Joon-Ho sets up this idea nicely by having the creature born from nature - and of human interference no less, as opposed to something supernatural or otherworldly. The grounding of the movie in a recognisable family reality is probably it’s greatest strength. Like the Park family, you just accept what happens and deal, and in the end, it’s not that much of a stretch.

Various arguments surrounding the reveal of the monster I've always found slightly tenuous because for all it’s refreshing glee, the scene in the park - indeed, the monster itself - is merely the catalyst for the main idea. Besides, when your creature design is this cool, why not show it off more? I actually praise Joon-Hu for being so un-subtle and almost blasé in his approach with this jaw dropping moment. It was superbly satisfying that not 20 minutes into The Host, we see a full shot of the creature diving into the river while curious gawkers scratch their heads, leading into a fantastically directed sequence where our slippery beastie asserts his need for breakfast. Yes, the best bit with the monster (but certainly not the last) is done less than half an hour into the film, but like I said, this isn’t Jaws or The Thing, so being patient is rewarding in different ways here.

To it’s credit, The Host still belongs in the same category as the above mentioned films because like them, it’s strengths lie in it’s ability to create a human situation around the monster that’s both compelling and interesting. It just doesn’t do it as well as Spielberg or Carpenter’s respective masterpieces. Unfortunately, it also suffers slightly from the same old genre clichés as well as being a tad too long despite an action packed finale. It remains a 'must see' for it's striking cinematography however, interesting performances which include some great borderline slapstick comedy, a not so flattering portrayal of the US government and of course, the creature itself is worth the price of admission alone..

The identity crisis suffering screenplay does lead you astray at times, but it’s definitely above your average Hollywood blockbuster, and even though being Korean might make it cooler; it doesn’t necessarily make it that much different. But then again, Cloverfield proved that being unique in the monster game, doesn’t always save you from disappointing cliché either. The Host is better than that film, and an overall recommended achievement.

Global Metal (2008)

2010-09-19T12:12:00.002+08:00

I don’t really want to compare Global Metal with Metal: A Headbanger’s Journey, but when in the introduction, our familiar world weary anthropologist metal-head from that film, Sam Dunn, reminds us that he did indeed make a film about metal culture before this one, it’s hard not too. And in that sense, this is the inferior documentary, but by no means a bad or uninteresting one. I’m not sure if it was ever supposed to be viewed as a “sequel”, but specifically, Global Metal does just feel more of an afterthought and lacks the weight, enthusiasm and resources of it’s predecessor to carry it through completely. Perhaps the passion of our buoyant young filmmakers has dwindled after the successful first film, or maybe it would have faired better as a TV special or series, because trying to be another cinematic looking feature doco, that AHJ was so successful at being, is probably it’s biggest downfall - at least in the beginning.

The travelling focuses on Asian culture the most, but we start in Brazil which probably has the biggest metal following in history out of all the countries visited. This is mainly pinned down to a staging of a gigantic 10 day festival, ‘Rock in Rio’ in 1985, which saw over one million Brazilians embrace the term “metal-head”. Ironically, this is where Global Metal struggles a bit to maintain interest. Though the mammoth crowd shots are impressive, there’s little added to it’s importance beyond that the country then went on to produce the hugely world wide popular band, Sepultura - with one observer claiming they are as important to Brazil as “Pele or the Amazon”. Given Dunn’s eventual intent though, it’s easy to see why dwelling on the band and their influence would have been missing the point.

As we travel to more obscure realms, it’s clear Dunn looks slightly bemused (but almost awed as well) when faced with how underground metal actually is in places such as India where no major metal bands have ever even played. On the other hand is China, who also has had no major metal gigs, and needing import bootleg CD’s to discover even the most bland western music, still thrives and produces world class metal. The contrasts throughout are very interesting, and provide the beginning of a much more intriguing element to the doco. Ultimately, I don’t think they’re explored enough at the start - I kind of felt a little cheated each time we moved cities, asking myself, “that’s as far as we’re going?”. I was hoping seeing fifty kids embracing a local metal gig in India wasn’t the point here, while at the same time understanding that when you simply don’t have material to use, you can only stretch it out so much. It turns out the ‘meat’ of the doco is saved for the more controversial of major cities.

Arriving in Indonesia we witness that, unlike similarly hugely populated countries like India and China, Indonesia has been fairly well exposed to metal which culminated in a massive Metallica concert in the early 90’s, leading to all rock gigs being banned on account of some ticket holders - who were not let into the show - tearing up the streets in their frustration. The footage of the actual concert amidst the chaos is compelling and Dunn does well to lead the film into a more religious themed topic of what it is like to be a young metal loving Muslim in a post 9-11 world. By the time we get to Israel and Dubai, the point and the relevance of the religious ties to metal is at the forefront.

Perhaps I was just being impatient with GM, because Dunn’s anthropological spirit shines through in the last half of the film and we’re left with an eye opening, well made, if sometimes disjointed look at how universal metal is as an art form, regardless of culture, and indeed that it can be a very positive thing in the right places. Considering that was probably the doco’s point too, I say good effort. The Iron Maiden concert climax is brief, but a fitting closure and confirms that AHJ was no fluke. It seems Dunn and co. have cornered the market of metal on film.

Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson (2008)

2010-09-19T11:43:00.002+08:00

Opening with Hunter S. Thompson’s written reactions to seeing 9/11 unfold on TV, Alex Gibney’s Gonzo thrusts us into the idea of Hunter first as a journalist, a rebel, a successful writer, a political campaigner and finally a man, the product of all his excesses, who was loved and admired by many. In-between detailing the author’s rebellion, out of control gun enthusiasm and drug use, we focus on only three major writings of his - his breakthrough novel; ‘Hell’s Angels‘, his most popular work, ‘Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas’ and arguably his best work; ‘Fear & Loathing on the Campaign Trail ‘72‘.

Gibney gives us a cross section of interviewees, hearing mainly from his former wives and son, Juan Thompson, various ex-politicians including George McGovern and Jimmy Carter plus his Rolling Stone editor and contacts during his prolific 1970’s period. Friends and peers are present too of course; Ralph Steadman, Tom Wolfe, Jimmy Buffet, but most notably Gibney avoids the trap of having an onslaught of celebrities reminisce about Hunter which helps to give the audience a more serious view of his importance to journalism and American politics, at the same time successfully evading or rehashing comments or ideas from Tom Thurman‘s 2006 slimmer documentary, Buy the Ticket, Take the Ride.

Put together with a both a professional, yet at times clunky pace, Gonzo combines large amounts of archival footage and photos with narration by Johnny Depp, who reads from - and is sometimes shown reading, relevant passages from Hunter’s writings. The biggest coup, however, is hearing various excerpt from Hunter’s own tape recorder - showcasing unique “in the moment” time capsules with the writer whilst on his wild escapades of gonzo journalism.

Ironically, the film’s most awkward moment is when focusing on his most popular novel, ‘Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas‘. The director spends far too much time showing clips from Terry Gilliam’s film adaptation and not enough exploration via the interesting Depp reading device or Hunter’s at the time comments - the segment certainly stamps the novels importance, but the overuse of movie footage crucially breaks up the tone. It’s a rare moment of ill judgement on Gibney’s part, but the following sections on his political campaigning alongside George McGovern and his influence as a journalist on American politics during the late 60’s, early 70’s retain the best moments of the documentary. These plus an earlier part which shows in detail Hunter’s attempts to run for Sheriff of Aspen, Colorado. These are poignant moments and one where ex-wife, Sandi Hunter recalls the latter being Hunter’s greatest moment, “having the passion to move people”. Not to be over-awed, the director exposes the clear buffoonery of the man also, countering the praise with obvious moments of ill judgement and unreliability by Hunter throughout his life, which lead to, amongst other things, his inability to re-create interesting work in his older age.

As the film moves onto Hunter’s suicide, the atmosphere shifts and even though his son admits “that it was no secret“ his father had planned to kill himself for many years, there’s a difference between that and it actually happening. Above all, the emotion is still clear on some of the interviewees recorded not three years after the event. Appropriately, we are shown the construction of the 'gonzo fist' tower Hunter had organised for his funeral and we’re left with the feelings of if only he’d waited, or perhaps not killed the man over the myth. A man that Tom Wolfe describes as probably being “trapped in gonzo”. Though not definitive, and possibly falling into the trap of clichéd eulogizing a times, Gonzo is still recommended for fans of Hunter, anyone with an interest in American politics or who just want to see what effect a flawed visionary can have on people and culture.

Inception (2010)

2010-07-26T23:25:00.004+08:00

Inception will be a film that will be considered like no other by many. At its core, it deals with the notion of entering someone’s dreams. Sharing their dream. Implanting an idea into someone’s mind by literally going into it. It’s a heist movie where the prize exists in someone’s subconscious, populated by - occasionally aggressive - “projections”. Sounds like something Phillip K. Dick would conjure up, and certainly not something that is found in a blockbuster too often without seeming overly corny. The fact that Inception doesn’t feel that way can be attributed to director Christopher Nolan’s extremely solid and original script, and the unique aura that carries it. Complex is one word to describe the film, but then so is action and emotion. Though it doesn’t quite reach its desired effect with the latter. Either way, it is a movie that deserves you to enter it with as little expectations or knowledge as possible. Suffice to say, there will be no synopsis from me and definitely no spoilers, but perhaps wait until you see it before you read this.

Theories already abound the internet about the nature of the story. Is it all a dream? There are various hints that support various theories, but in the end, the real appreciation of the film for me is what Nolan has achieved as director. A scene towards the end is done in a such way that endless debate is a given, let alone the desire to re-visit the film and delve deeper into what it all means. This is a man who respects what an audience deserves. Like his films, The Prestige and Memento, Nolan has once again altered the literal act of making a film, to create another truly unique experience. Everything about Inception’s construction is reminiscent of a dream itself, and further proof that Nolan prefers to invent his own rules when it comes to his approach to direction. So-called dream logic is the main guideline here. That logic, as explained to the audience within the film, is employed in several subtle ways throughout. For example, some may claim that us entering scenes with no real illustration of how we got there is a possible flaw of the screenplay. But this is the film operating in the dream logic, the very same that is explained to Ariadne, ’The Architect’ (Ellen Page), by Cobb (DiCaprio). There are other examples including an intriguing chase in Mumbai early on. What all this reveals at least is that Nolan is constantly working beyond the surface and tempts us several times to delve deeper with him. Amazingly, purely on the surface, it is still a very solid, intelligent action film as well. Something that makes it feel like an almost futuristic Bond film at times. Something Nolan has acknowledged as an influence. It can, and should appeal to everybody.

Unfortunately, it was probably inevitable that given the complexity of the narrative, and the no doubt mega-tough shooting schedule, clunky moments would exist, preventing the film from earning any ‘perfect’ tags. However, it is namely in some of the more generic action choreography. A snow covered ambush by Cobb’s crew for example comes off as straight-to-video hurriedness at times, though this may be the fault of a second unit on the film. It's overall relentless pace helps you forget such minor quarrels however. This is 140+ minutes that felt almost half that for me. Nolan’s last effort, The Dark Knight, suffered from being overdrawn in its final act. Here, Inception does not overstay its welcome in that regard. Constantly moving, adding layers and bewildering us with glorious cinematography, catching one’s breath is not easy when the final act’s ball starts rolling.

So under all its psychoanalysing weight, does Nolan’s film topple like the integral 'totem' seen in the film? Well, no, but casual film goers should be forgiven if they happen to lose their way in the second half. Descending through level upon level of dreams within dreams and various states of limbo, all within it’s own time frame that naturally varies to ‘real time‘, which we are also cutting to as a lot of the action is going on, can easily become a delirious overload if you’re not fully tuned in from the very beginning. The balance of the films sci-fi branded story however, and it’s instant satisfaction of blockbuster action - including a mind boggling ‘how did they do it?’ moment involving a fight in a hotel corridor at virtual zero gravity, is one of it’s greatest strengths. One that may turn blockbuster expectations on its head now that it has finally made its mark on the film going public after so much expectation. Wait, didn’t he do that with TDK already?

Most of the characters besides our central figure, Dom Cobb, serve their purpose, but we are not really given a chance to invest in them overly. Then maybe that is the point. Our focus is on Cobb and all the emotion is based around him. Leonardo DiCaprio, as Cobb, gives a strong performance, especially considering it follows his extremely impressive turn in Shutter Island. Unfortunately, his emotional journey didn’t resonate enough, and as we go deeper and deeper into his troubled past, the pay off had me more predictably satisfied than moved. The rest of the cast featuring Ken Watanabe, Marion Cotillard, Cillain Murphy, Ellen Page and Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Cobb’s off-sider, Arthur are solid. The latter being the pick of the bunch. Tom Hardy as ’The Forger’ provides some nicely placed wit that may surprise some, but the film benefits from having an off beat sense of humour trailing through it. In addition, seeing Tom Berenger, albeit briefly, up on the big screen again, was welcome.

Overall, Inception is an exhilarating experience. One that stays with you long afterwards - like all good films should. To not embrace it, at least as an example of a director looking to try to push the envelope (both in narrative and indeed, mechanics of film structure), is possibly missing the film’s (and its creators') overall vision. Cliché and archetypes may still exist in Nolan’s world - unavoidable when trying to please everybody, but this does not erase the fact that he remains a director looking to redefine what can be considered mainstream movie entertainment. Whether he has achieved that with Inception is of course, all about personal preference, because no one person’s opinion is neither right or wrong. I'm just glad it is here, to be experienced.

Retrospective #1: The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004)

2010-07-20T21:33:00.001+08:00

I like Wes Anderson's films. His style or whatever it is about him, I dig it. I don’t think he is a genius, or master director or put him on any kind of movie pedestal. He’s just an odd kid with some cool ideas to me. I am not one of those people who finds him going “indie for indie sake” either - his films are on a different level to be battered by such broad, clichéd swipes. His brilliant second film, Rushmore, about unique high school student, Max Fischer, existed almost a decade before Juno was "cool". Watching this movie again for about the forth time last night, I started thinking about why did it leave me so disappointed compared to his other films when I first saw it? All signs point to this being my favourite film of his - but it never has been by a long shot despite always having some fun with it. So here then, is my first 'retrospective' for the blog. Not a re-review per say, but a look back at a film and my thoughts about it and it's leagacy (or lack thereof!). Perhaps a questionably recent film to start with, but whatever gets the ball rolling.

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, Anderson’s forth film, still remains his most hit and miss affair. Further viewings - if you are willing to take them - definitely help you appreciate what does work about it, however. The main problem seems to be that while Anderson’s plan to take on a story about a quirky Jacques Cousteau type (looking to rekindle a bond between his estranged son), had been in the back of his mind most of his adult life, its final execution sees him stumble, being a victim of his own eccentricity. If he felt that budgets keep him from doing it before The Royal Tenebaums, perhaps he should have waited even longer after making his dysfunctional family hit. No doubt, the moment was looking to be seized, "suits" quick to cash in on his flavour of the month status after Tenebaums and to cap it off, the gleeful temptation of having Murray in the lead after all his post Oscar nom attentions.

Why Aquatic is not a total success for the director could potentially come down to many reasons. This was the first time he collaborated on the script with someone other than Owen Wilson (here it was young auteur on the move, Noah Baumbach), and not too mention this one is his most plot driven film, making it suitable for the notion of it being an adventure - a bit of a departure for him no matter how you look at it. It was the follow up to his most popular film to date, and it is fair to say, a distinctly similar style was employed here, one that had already peaked for him and was probably not the best approach. A shame, given how important this character was to him - but in reality, how could it have been down any other way? In odd irony, the momentary failure of this film for such a reason overall is probably the only way he could have made his arguably most mature film, The Darjeeling Limited. Seeming to try to avoid a similar scenario, Anderson went deeper, moulding his screenplay, but also literal production design and concepts to give the film his most “realistic” vibe & look. Its still wasn’t his best work in my opinion, but it was the Wes universe properly manifested on a new level, streamlined, with quirks and real emotion un-sacrificed. In turn, this possibly led him to tackle an even more diverse project with the entire stop motion, Fantastic Mr Fox, his most recent film. So in the bigger picture, Life Aquatic's flaws are likely to have contributed to the man becoming a more mature director in the long run. What artist doesn't learn from their mistakes after all?

I sound all quite negative I suppose, but on the contrary, the film is still greatly rewarding for me after several viewings. I can never escape Anderson's exuberance. On the surface, one cannot deny the production design (including the wonderful ‘Belafonte’ stage), and in fairness, Zissou’s world of bizarre sea life and off kilter companions in matching red beanies, is uniquely wonderfully to Anderson - including the first time introducing stop motion to his repertoire. It’s a film made to enjoy dwelling in, but perhaps Zissou himself makes it difficult. Although all the performances are good, including great turns from Cate Blanchett, Wilson and Willem Dafoe as the goofy, ultra-dedicated, Klaus, it is Bill Murray as the titular oceanographer, that seems to be having the least fun. But then perhaps that is the point. Zissou was never supposed to be likable (as his crew’s eventual mutiny proves) and in that sense Murray probably nails it. How much of stretch it was for him at the time is another story. It would be shame to hear that a role created with him in mind, was possibly boring to him enough to merely lumber through. It is hard to not get that impression. Perhaps I am missing some inner genius from the SNL legend here, despite him being one of my favourite actors.

So while the humour is laugh aloud here and there, it is possibly too deadpan and peculiar for its own good, and the striving emotion is not invested enough for us too be truly moved. The helicopter scene achieves this as best as it can, but the Jaguar shark moment at the end comes off too forced. Regardless, I don’t dislike any of Anderson’s films, only merely rank them, and The Life Aquatic is still an adventure I like to take every now and then. Plus, it has a soundtrack of David Bowie songs performed in Portuguese. That must be worth your time. It goes without saying, non-Wes Anderson fans need not apply.

Harry Brown (2009)

2010-07-13T22:03:00.003+08:00

Harry Brown (Michael Caine), an ex-marine and Northern Island pensioner, lives in a much maligned apartment block in South London that is overrun by violent youths. His wife is dying in the hospital and his best mate, Leonard (David Bradley) - with whom he plays chess with in the local pub, is intensely frightened by the goings on in their neighbourhood, and feels forced to carry around an old bayonet for protection. Harry visits his wife everyday, but always avoids a quicker route to the hospital via an underpass, as it is a favourite hang out of the aggressive troublemakers. This proves costly as one night he receives a phone call alerting him to his wife’s worsening health. Avoiding the shortcut again, he arrives too late to find she has died. On top of this, a few days later, Leonard is accosted after a gang of youths vandalise his home and is murdered by his own weapon. This proves too much for Harry and his disheartening faith in a weak police effort to do something leads him to take methods into his own hands.

The film is the debut from director Daniel Barber. It’s a simple story, but his previous background in commercials comes through in Harry Brown, as the camera movement is stark, but fluid. The editing precise. It is classic stylish filmmaking and the film is much better for it. The only “shaky” cam we get here is in a shocking home video pre-credits sequence. This intro sets the tone, and Brown doesn’t pull its punches when it comes to its violence. Some CGI blood looks a bit out of place in moments, but its graphic nature cannot be denied, though in no way does it really come off as gratuitous. It earns its Death Wish comparisons for sure, but this is no brainless action entity either. Its moral code is questionable, but not alarmingly so.

The film takes itself very seriously and strives for realism in all aspects. It is a shame then that in some ways Brown is a bit far fetched. Of course, sacrifices sometimes need to be made to forward a plot, but when a film invests as much in its emotion as it does here in its beginnings, a stumbling police sub plot and motive hinders the script occasionally. A weak plot point towards the end is used for a tense (if cliched) final act, but comes off more as a tacked on device rather than having any sort of relevance. Surprisingly, these things still do not really take off any of the emotional weight the film carries itself on from the get go. Martin Phipps dreary, manipulative score helps to keep you there, but it is Michael Caine at its centre that makes it all work.

Caine’s Harry is yet another notch for the veteran actor’s belt. His transformation from weak, frightened senior citizen to calculated avenger is realised excellently. His performance is a classic slow burn achievement. Rather than pushing, Barber trusts his star and Caine’s emotional nuances and at times intense scripting help Harry Brown achieve a believability through his acting. Emily Mortimer gets a majority of the screen time besides Caine, and her role as a police detective alongside partner Charles Creed-Miles is solid enough to be convincing. The several gang members are played with disturbing authenticity, which ramps up the intensity whenever they are on screen. Also good is Liam Cunningham as pub owner, Sid. A small but pivotal role in the drama.

Overall, I enjoyed Harry Brown a lot. It is an extremely stylish, dark and heavy hitting revenge drama. It will not sit well for some casual viewers to be sure, but as a human justice thriller for adults, it is a healthy addition to the genre. For Daniel Barber, its young debut director - albeit aided by one of Britain’s finest actors, it is an impressive first film and definite step in the right direction.

The Black Keys - Brothers (2010)

2010-07-04T16:44:00.000+08:00

As a dedicated fan since the release of their second album, Thickfreakness, it’s comforting witnessing a band evolve the way The Black Keys have. Their willing journey to experiment has yielded possibly their best achievement so far with Brothers. That journey, that has seen them move away from the stripped down basement fuzz production of a lone drum/guitar ensemble of the earlier records, to performing and producing a unique hip-hop record (Blakroc) to releasing the first thing that fully embraces every instrument and arrangement at their disposal. If producer Danger Mouse showed them the potential with a few keyboards on the excellent Attack and Release, Brothers proves that not only did the Akron duo learn from that, but utterly embraced it.

One of the first things you notice about the album, besides the booming, glossy production values, is the fact that lead guitar is much less of a focus, and more of an element or component alongside the other instruments. This was apparent on Attack and Release to a degree, but not like here. There’s no spitfire angst like ‘I Got Mine’ for example (only second single, 'Next Girl' comes close). Brothers’ is decidedly percussion heavy. Driven by Pat Carney’s infectious beats, there’s still plenty of guitar skill being flung around of course, as Dan Auerbach is an evolving bluesman of the highest calibre, to omit it completely would be a foolish thing to expect. Here rhythm is his intent, though tracks such as 'She's Long Gone', 'Tighten Up' and a brief instrumental mid way through does bring the six stringer to the forefront a bit more just to reassure us.

To truly hear how good Brothers is however, one needs to fully embrace and recognise the song writing, arrangements and vocals. In that sense it is the best possible, “expected” follow up to A&R, and fans of that album will probably love it. Lack of whisky inspired riffs and solos may have some wish for the pace and attitude of Rubber Factory or Thickfreakness, but you can’t hold a band back for playing what comes natural. More than anything, Brothers sounds very much like the destiny of the Keys. A sort of Blues-fusion utterly unique to the boys. After six albums, listening to songs such as opener, ‘Everlasting Light’ groove its way into your body, it just feels right that they sound the way they do now.

While not all fifteen tracks do hit the mark, it matters little as the whole album flows superbly. The vibe being constant, with the fact that no real songs stand out being a positive for the album as a listening whole. The first half is much punchier and dance floor orientated, but a gradual move to the slower numbers of the final third of the album is sublime and adds to the overall replay value. These are the tracks where TBK have always been at their best too. Towards the end, we get Dan in his finest form, ‘Never Gonna Give You up’ is worthy of being alongside the Motown classics that inspired it. ‘These Days’, a beautiful closer. As expected, his lyrics centre around lost loves and painful regrets. Fusing Soul, blues and hip-hop, TBK have achieved a sound befitting their obvious intentions. Auerbach reaching status as a vocalist on par with his idols. Though some may argue he already had, On Brothers, he finally achieves a voice of his own, striped almost completely of imitation or homage. Overall, an exceptional addition to their catalogue.

Iron Man 2 (2010)

2010-05-15T17:17:00.002+08:00

IM2 proves to be a bit of a hard film to rate. For all its fairly obvious flaws, it’s still a better than average blockbuster, but without question, no match for its predecessor. Initially, I was very concerned. It wasn’t instantly engaging like the first film, and there seemed to be a lot of lazy script moments early on. It certainly picks up and gets better as it goes along, but the first half an hour was pretty weak indeed. The first proper action sequence, set in Monaco, was a joke compared to anything in Ironman, and just plain silly for the most part. Main baddie, Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), is introduced straight away, but his motives are not really explained well and feel wafer thin. Eventually the script kicks into what the movie is really about though; the development of S.H.I.E.L.D and The Avengers project.

I thought it would be, but the involvement of numerous characters wasn’t so much of a problem for me. I definitely got a kick out of all the in-jokes and set ups for inevitable, down the line Marvel projects too (including a stay till after the credits moment much like the original film). In fact, it was Rourke of all people that felt most out of place. His performance was fine enough, but his Whiplash appeared only when really needed to forward Sam Rockwell’s Justin Hammer arc once the film got started and his much anticipated face-off against Iron Man and War Machine, with an absolute kick arse machine of his own no less, barely lasts two minutes. Scarlett Johansson and Sam Jackson at least served a larger purpose. Of course, Rockwell steals every damn scene he’s in as far as I’m concerned – including with Downey Jr’s ostentatious as ever, Tony Stark. The introduction of Rhodes was a cheeky surprise by Favreau, and to Cheadle’s credit, I actually thought the continuity might suffer slightly with a different actor, but after a couple of scenes, it was almost, Terrance who? Continuity outright is pretty good, though it does feel like a bit more than six months later as stated at the start.

By blockbuster standards, it is definitely a decent sequel, but considering the first movie was an origin story, it didn’t seem to really build on too much beyond the Avengers stuff. Stark’s hedonism is certainly explored, his and his father’s true “legacy” is brought forward (and finalized) as the central theme, and Pepper is given a little more to do than just flirt this time. It makes little difference unfortunately in a fairly clunky script, that leaves little direction for a third film, especially when you consider how much Marvel push other ‘coming soon’ characters here. Thankfully, the one liners were still there, and pretty consistent (“I was here first. Get a roof!”). The humour overall was a strong point of the film.

I didn’t enjoy it as much as other second comic book films such as Spiderman 2, X2 or even Hell Boy 2, but it certainly wasn’t boring. The action is predictably exciting, the CGI flawless. Fans of the first film (which I love) will find many things to like in it, but IM2’s execution is certainly sloppier, less compelling and less smart overall. Rest assured for those having doubts though, it definitely ends a lot better than it begins, and almost certainly did leave me willing to suit up again for a third if it happens. Worth your time, though it is clear, Marvel is using this film as a stepping stone to bringing their entire universe to the big screen.

Kick-Ass (2010)

2010-04-27T22:31:00.005+08:00

Bored from masturbation and the typical high school life of a nerd, Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson) one day decides to let his imagination take over. Sick of wondering the why of being an actual superhero, he decides to re-invent himself as one, calling himself Kick-Ass. As he costumes up and ineptly attempts to thwart minor crimes, he comes across Batman wannabe, Big Daddy (Nicholas Cage) and his 11 year old daughter, Mindy aka Hit-Girl (Chloe Moretz). Though their's and Dave’s intentions are similar, Hit-Girl and Big Daddy are the real deal, killing and (literally) taking apart New York crime. Particularly, a violent drug syndicate led by Frank D’Amico (Mark Strong).

Appropriately titled, Kick-Ass is a definitely unique film despite director Matthew Vaughan applying obvious homage and certain formulas within its fast paced, blood soaked screenplay. That uniqueness for me mainly stemed from its ability to splice between the stark, semi-crude teen humour with severe dramatics (witness Kick-Ass’s attempt to stop two intimidating car thieves ending with the hard nose reality of such a situation). It may be jarring for some, but as the film goes on, it finds its vibe however multi-genre it ends up being, and still doesn’t try to be anything more than it was initially conceived as; pure comic book. In a sense, it’s understandable that some older critics have not been favourable – when it is in the mood, Kick-Ass wants you to feel the consequences whilst still happy bringing the jaw dropping anti-realism to its more violent action scenes. A frustrating experience for some no doubt.

It should be said however, Kick-Ass really does do excel in those action stakes. Breaking up the story in jolts, it is filmed in a way that feels truly cutting edge, while still managing to acknowledge its inspirations in the execution. The John Woo–inspired gun play is outstandingly staged. In one sequence, blurring the line between video game and movie, an attack by our young female protagonist, and filmed through the eyes of a pair of night vision goggles, appears as a cutting edge FPS, adding a surreal quality to be sure. Is it an intentional device to help audiences separate themselves from seeing a child do these things? Is it suggesting movies are more akin to a video game than real life? Or is it done because it just looks cool...maybe the latter is closer to the truth, but I have a hunch there is more going on than just comic book action. Which, while its agenda’s can be an ongoing debate, there is no denying the obvious; Kick-Ass is a contemporary pop culture manifest complete with its own instant cult figurehead; eleven year old Hit-Girl. It will be difficult to avoid her impression in the near future, particularly if we’re talking sequels, which the film quite certainly sets up – true to genre form.

Knowing that all this carnage is perpetrated by an 11 year old girl merely makes it more exuberant in all honesty. Perhaps some have trouble accepting that violence, presented in certain ways, is very entertaining to a lot of people. Be it wielded by an adult male, 11 year old girl or crazed monkey, and a staple in blockbuster filmmaking. After all, Kick-Ass’s pint sized killing machine even rivals Quentin Tarantino’s Beatrix Kiddo. Vaughan showing he certainly owes a lot to that director’s own approach to pulp fiction and on screen violence as well. Performances are solid all round, and it would seem, that perhaps this, finally, is a presentation of 'Generation-Y' on screen that can be embraced as both realistic and a mock; while Mark Strong and Nicholas Cage relish the lines they’re given. Cage in particular is impressive dealing out the pain and the humour – his Adam West approach to talking whilst in costume is a highlight.

Feeling like the spawn of Watchmen and Judd Apatow, with a bit of Sam Raimi’s Spiderman thrown in, it succeeds admirably as a “comic book movie” more than anything else. Having never read the comic however, I cannot make comparisons as an adaptation. The film is definitely for a niche market and many will hate it for many different reasons, which means it will probably only ever retain relevance as a cult favourite. As someone who walked out of the cinema slightly bewildered by the sense of witnessing something so fresh for a change though, its few actual filmmaking issues or cliché stumbles, couldn’t fault the fact that it never stopped entertaining me.

The Book of Eli (2010)

2010-04-18T12:03:00.001+08:00

Eli (Denzel Washington), an expert hand-to-hand combatant nomad, is on a quest possessing the only copy of the bible believed to be left in the world, trudging over country suffering from an apocalyptic war 30 years previous and a "flash” caused by the sun that has burned virtually all of the landscape. Things go bad for our hero when he wanders into a town run by Carnegie (Gary Oldman) – a man persistently looking for a copy of the bible in order to use its words to manufacture a new population complete with blind faith.

The Book of Eli is an obvious mixture of The Road and The Road Warrior, with a sprinkle of Children of Men, and while it ends up not being as impressive as any of those films, it still proves worth watching. That is, for an audience not looking to over think the feverish faith and religion storyline that drives it. Is it perfect fodder for a typical mainstream audience then? Sort of, but it mainly reaches for action fans and perhaps ones who can appreciate good art direction more than anyone else. To begin with though, the look of the film is a solid achievement. While the design of a virtual black and white ash covered post apocalyptic world is slowly becoming almost cliché in Hollywood of late, Eli still looks convincing with its barren deserts, spaghetti western-like towns and decaying bridges CGI. The Hughes brother's unique employ of the camera also helps generate an experience that at least feels fresh. Given the post-apocalypse sub-genre is well trodden ground, that's fairly applaudable, though there's no doubt the movie unfortunately suffers from style without substance too often.

The script is good enough, with only few minor details ignored marring it from achieving a totally consistent reality (the source of water is a major plot point for example, but not so much fuel for any of the vehicles used to get around in). Plus much like The Road, not much time is given to the actual cause of this world either, but it stands by its conceptual rules well enough, however wafer thin. Adding to the atmosphere is a unique score which is a definite standout feature. It is thrust, almost overbearingly on our ears after the opening scene, announcing itself as almost a character in itself. A Vangelis-Blade Runner feel at first, it eventually moulds into its own futuristic sounding melancholy.

Despite the noteable production design, exuberant violence and soundtrack however, it is the performances that keep you involved for most of Eli's running time – Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman are in good form. Though the British thespian is obviously tapping into characters such as his manic Stansfield in Leon (his Garnegie is a virtual, yet tamer retread), when it's Oldman, it matters little even if he's merely sleepwalking on screen. He is immensely watchable as usual. Washington is all frowns and (merciless) killing for most of the film, but his charisma and humour does shine through in some moments, making him feel slightly more rounded. As Eli's eventual trawling sidekick, Mila Kunis embodies the touch cookie attitude well, but still comes off too glamorous for someone who was apparently born into her current decaying environment. There are familiar faces in support and cameos too, with Tom Waits and Malcolm McDowell making brief appearances.

I'm sure many Christians particularly who see this film will pick up on what it's actually trying to say under the surface (while cynics will have a field day), but for the most part, The Book of Eli boils down to a solid blockbuster, man-against-the-world type flick, complete with machete beheadings and clichéd scenarios. Most of its silliness is forgivable however, in a film that puts in a good effort of simple entertainment value. If you spend too much time mulling over the why's and how's of the script or scorning it for its clunky homages for example, you'll miss the good it has going for it, including a slightly unbelievable, yet true to concept ending that definitely caught me by surprise. Denzel fans who make the effort to catch it on the big screen probably won't be disappointed given the actor's more recent roles, everyone else however, should maybe wait for the eventual (no doubt spectacular looking) blu-ray.

The Road (2009)

2010-02-13T19:03:00.001+08:00

With little to no explanation, the world has burned, now dying a slow death. From what we can gather, for approximately ten years until we join the film in present day. The few humans left trudge over nature's remains in search of food and mere survival. Cannibalism has become, for some, the only option. We follow nameless Man and Boy exclusively on their journey - constantly living in fear. This a world where the moral dilemmas of our protagonists are stripped down to being either "the good guys" or "the bad guys". The Road encompasses an other worldly atmosphere. A disturbing re-creation of a post apocalyptic world. Given the elements pulled together by director, cinematographer and production designer, I was blown away by the film's look. A gorgeous, moving artwork on a decaying future world.

The few "action" scenes feel perfectly placed. Not intruding on the pace, but unravelling at just the right moments to keep the main journey constantly involving. All the thriller elements in Road I thought were expertly directed. One scene in a mansion provided chilling suspense that rivals anything I have seen in modern horror in a long time. Director John Hillcoat has said his film is not a horror one, but with it’s themes of cannibalism; it delves into the darkest notions of human desperation. That is an exercise in pure horror. Perhaps compared to the novel, it has been toned down, but there is no denying the territory we are in in these moments.

Kodi Smit-Mcphee's performance as the boy is possibly the only distraction unfortunately, but I think for a child actor, he does extremely well and as good as probably expected. Mainly, given the intense material too. Obviously, the connection between Man and Boy is the crux of the story and unfortunately, it seemed to lack some depth. Convincing enough, yes, but not earth shatteringly emotional. I still believed in their connection, it just did not move me as much as I'd hoped. In reality, as it is entertained in the film, they are virtually from different worlds. The boy only knowing the one of cannibalism and desperation, while The man once had that normal life. Having a connection that lacks a more predictable, typical father son level of emotion, could possibly be a more apt approach. Viggo Mortensen as The Man, unsurprisingly, excels. Outstanding in breathing life into the character, especially when you consider him in the flashbacks, then in present day as time goes on and finally as his inevitable death looms. His arc perfectly realised, his desperation was gut wrenching in some scenes. It proved to me yet again, that he remains one of the most impressive and important actors of his generation. Of the side players, Charlize Theron, Robert Duvall and Guy Pearce were all excellent in their respective, brief appearances.

The Road was haunting, suspenseful and poignant. A near masterpiece of the bleak, depressing nature of loss and notion of what would you do? The idea of a post apocalyptic world is one that always brings an intriguing interest, but I felt Road transcended a mere genre tag with it's stunning set design and powerful performances. Nick Cave and Warren Ellis's score I found appropriate and un-intrusive, if not overly exceptional. Finally, though, is it too much to award a film that shows a child being taught to kill himself? Seems to be, but sometimes dwelling in such a dark place is a rewarding and necessary thing.

Massive Attack - Heligoland (2010)

2010-02-13T18:49:00.000+08:00

Heligoland is a good example of what Massive Attack driving force, Robert Del Naja, has claimed his ambition for the group was to inevitably become. Less a 'band', than a collective of musicians - varying with each release. The amount of different lead vocalists on this release (more than ever before) exemplifies a lot of that ideal. For example, Del Naja himself doesn’t even really speak a whole song until more than halfway through, plus, much like the last album, cover your ears for second and you’ll probably miss Daddy G’s minor involvement vocals wise - appearing only briefly on the third track, ‘Splitting the Atom’.

Breaking contemporary electronic music ground is not something MA really provide anymore, but considering what they have done for the scene in the past, it's forgivable that they are now a different beast. Plus even though their last effort, 2002’s 100th Window was a stellar release, it did not contain anything as influencing or immense as ‘Angel’ or ‘Inertia Creeps’ for example. This is similar territory to that album, though Land is not without its own standout tracks. ‘Girl I Love You’ is an instant Massive classic, with a throbbing bass line meandering under the always-stellar contributor Horace Andy’s vocals. With Heligoland, they have definitely settled for expanding themselves as artists, still making sophisticated electronic music, just perhaps not the overly innovative type some may still expect from the Bristol duo.

Production wise it is certainly a very mellow listen. Many of the songs felt like 100th Window ‘s style melding with something a little more off the wall, like Bjork’s Vespertine, with maybe a bit of Radiohead's Amnesiac. Harsh, bass driven trip-hop beats are less favourable now, rather creating an atmosphere within each track is the order of the day. The whole album is extremely hypnotic. The distinct vocals of Del Naja and Andy add to the Massive signature flavour, but the likes of Elbow‘s Guy Garvey, Hope Sandoval and TV on the Radio’s Tunde Adebimpe bring a new uniqueness to the production. Overall, it is impressive enough if not as much so as the superior 100th Window. No denying it though, that bass line on ‘Girl I Love You’ is one phat muthafucka!

People forever hoping for Mezzanine Part II will obviously be disappointed with Heligoland, as they probably were with the last album. All I can say is that over the last ten years, the lads have matured, mellowed out and their priorities are obviously very different. If this is what we can expect from the name Massive Attack in the 21st century, I myself, am certainly not going to complain. Protection, Blue Lines and Mezzanine will always be there, serving their place in contemporary music history. Perhaps it is still hard for some to accept their heroes have moved on. The only downer? It'll be about seven years before we get another one.

He Got Game (1998)

2010-01-30T18:15:00.001+08:00

Spike Lee’s homage to the game that he loves is a passionate father and son story that hits all the right marks, most of the time. Shot in less than a month, the film was famous for Lee’s choice to use a real NBA player in the lead role of Jesus Shuttlesworth. After several considerations, he landed on (then rookie) Ray Allen.

Allen, a much better ball player than actor, is one of the weaker links of the film, but his natural instincts do help embody a stubbornness and immaturity that would define his character - a high school student in the midst of choosing which college too attend, or indeed, jump straight into the NBA after a phenomenal high school career. To put his acting under even more scrutiny, his opposite is Denzel Washington, in imposing form as his father, Jake, a convict released for a week to convince his estranged son to join Big State university in order to have his sentenced reduced. Jake however is in jail for accidentally killing his wife, Jesus’ mother. To say their relationship is strained is to say the least. Jesus is unsure of what to do, and the appearance of his hated father does not help matters, nor that Jesus is being touted as a saviour of the game - hype he can’t help but start to believe. Rounding out the cast are Lee regulars, such as Bill Nunn and John Turturro, but also Rosario Dawson as Jesus’ girlfriend and Zelda Harris as his younger sister. Throughout too, are cameos from basketball greats past and present.

Spike Lee loves basketball. The warm opening credits of kids shooting hoops underscored by an uplifting composition make it obvious. The orchestral score throughout is possibly unconventional considering the urban nature of the film, but it works well to serve the drama, depth and emotion. Punctured at certain moments by thumping Public Enemy songs, the overall construction of He Got Game is unique to the director and it is a credit to him using a lot of his specific elements. Not to mention the basketball action (which is less than one might expect) is photographed beautifully. A scene towards the end where father and son finally play one on one is exceptional.

At 134 minutes it does drag at times with the director having trouble putting in closure, involving some slightly unexpected moments. Scenes involving a hooker (played by Milla Jovovich) and Jake are obviously there to widen the man‘s character, but this storyline seems tacked on and could have been left out to keep the film more streamlined. Jake is no saint, so trying to make him one felt inappropriate. This film has also been accused for flaunting misogyny, but I have always believed that is unfounded.

Compared to the likes of Do The Right Thing and Malcolm X, He Got Game is not quite up to the director’s best standard, but to me, he is a prolific, yet unpredictable filmmaker and it stands as one of my favourites of his. Despite it’s flaws, this is still a solid work and one of the best films involving the sport ever made, especially considering it delivers some prophetic moments about the institution that is the profession in the real world.

Sherlock Holmes (2009)

2010-01-29T19:10:00.000+08:00

The films of Guy Ritchie could never be accused of lacking style. Substance maybe, but they have always appeared slick with their suave characters and unique use of fast and slo-mo cutting. Such is the case with Sherlock Holmes. A striking looking film that fires along at a pace we can only expect (and want) of the British director. Like many of the diatribes churned out by the titular character, Holmes is streamlined, hilarious and, possibly surprisingly, curse free. Despite holding back slightly, it still does have his usual education in violence, but overall, works as a generation crossing blockbuster.

In what is possibly one of the few times when the term, ’perfect casting’ can be used, Robert Downey Jr. seems almost born to become modern cinema’s 19th century sleuth. His wit and swagger filling the screen as much as the impressive production design. Jude Law proves no slouch or indeed, no envy opposite the leading man either, playing Dr. Watson with a confident familiarity making the camaraderie between the two seem even more authentic. Their chemistry is fantastic, making the film extremely watch able.

Unfortunately, the rest of the cast can barely reach the standard of the two leads, but it is hardly at fault of their own. Rachael McAdams’ Irene Idle plays the love interest with an agenda well enough, but then, is restricted by her material. Mark Strong as Lord Blackwood has a good presence, but again, little to work with. His clichéd villainousness holds little water amongst the rest of the clever script. Seems so much was put into making Holmes and Watson hilarious and superior to the world little time was given to the bad guy’s dialogue or motives. His whole cause feels lacklustre. Even Blackwood’s foremost defiance atop a jaw dropping vision of a half completed London Bridge is still overshadowed by Holmes’ quick-witted deductions played out in Richie’s typically cocaine-infused style. Sure, it’s the detective’s show, but a little balance would have helped. The only supporting players given any real potential end up being Eddie Marsan’s Inspector Lestrade, while the mysterious Professor Moriarty does provide ample curiosity for the expected sequel.

Possibly, it is not exclusively what I expected, but then what the expectations are and what we finally get, can sometimes be a fine line. Unfortunately, as seems to be the case with the more recent output of the director, several problems prevent it from being a complete success. None of which take away from the fun and exuberance of Holmes however, and by the time the creative credits roll, it stands as probably his most engaging film since Snatch, with enough set pieces for the masses to embrace.

Not being familiar with the original literature, comparisons (by me) are by and large irrelevant, but as an avid watcher of films, I think it is always best to be aware of who is the creative force behind them. Guy Ritchie has sent a statement to Hollywood with Holmes that he is capable of producing a fun night at the movies without compromise. Narrative and script issues notwithstanding, its pure entertainment, old boy.

Top 10 Films of 2009

2010-01-11T20:12:00.000+08:00

10. STATE OF PLAY

Predictable genre rules alongside the expectations that come with being a “re-imaging” possibly dog this re-soundly excellent film, but considering that the subject matter could have potentially become much more derivative than it does, it is fine, mature filmmaking. Perhaps not on the level of similar themed films, it stands up well by having a substantial modern notion competing with the once leading edge standard as a main part of it‘s story. Flying the flag defiantly for the old school media, its insight and humour running alongside the thrills proves Kevin MacDonald is a very slick director, again delivering the goods.

9. AVATAR

The ‘blockbuster’ of the year, it was hard to ignore James Cameron’s return to the big screen, and even harder for some to admire it. In terms of SFX, the bar has been raised tremendously. Only to be bettered by anyone who takes on Cameron’s actual technology as far as I am concerned. It was hardly Shakespeare with its pedestrian storyline, weak characters and clichéd outcomes, but nevertheless, the exhilarating sense of adventure, fun and almost bewilderment with what is being seen on screen discounted a lot of that. Movies don’t have to be perfect to be enjoyed and despite this film unashamedly being about it’s broad appeal via disappointing story sacrifices, if you didn’t get caught up in it all, as a movie fan, I almost feel sorry for you!

8. WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE

Spike Jonze’s “adaptation” has its detractors, especially considering the film ignores trying to forge any major narrative, rather letting scenes follow one another organically. For better or worse, this approach lends the film to having a dream like aura, a surreal quality that if you miss the boat at the start, it can be surely impossible to then lose yourself in Max’s imagination with the decidedly idiosyncratic Wild Things. It is not really what anybody was expecting I would dare say, but it stands as a testament to not only amazing technical achievements, but also how a children’s book can become something truly for adults.

7. MILK

Despite the biopic having a commercial resurgence in the 00’s, the story of a celebrated gay rights activist’s last eight years alive is one that does not strike you as having much conventional mainstream attraction. Bold in it’s narrative structure - very political in its chronicle whilst choosing not too show our central protagonist’s younger years, it resembles less a biopic of one man, than an account of a moment in time. Gus Van Sant effortlessly delivers the story in a way that it can be embraced by the broader audience, whilst retaining a bit of the director’s natural quirk.

6. DRAG ME TO HELL

Ah, bless. Leave it to the creator the Evil Dead 2 to deliver another revealing stake through the heart of the contemporary Hollywood horror genre. Though it might be shunned by some of the stiffer filmgoers out there not familiar with the director‘s earlier films, DMTH retains the spirit of what makes horror such a fun experience. It was almost a reward - or gift - to the fans for their patience putting up with so much torture obsessed and remake dross over the last ten years. Its flaws are minor and resemble little more than forgivable genre traits so once the credits roll, we are left with a memorable entry into what can sometimes be a gruelling catalogue of recent genre efforts.

5. WATCHMEN
Given its enormous reputation and scope, comparisons to the source material always seemed unfair, but the film, as Zack Synder’s Watchmen, is an achievement that seemed to do the impossible: enjoyed by those familiar with the book and those that are not. Depressingly grand visions, a convincing script with jet black humour and with the occasional superb output of violence, it was a very entertaining two and a half hours without - thankfully - overly pandering to the tent pole crowd. Despite probably not being as philosophical as it wants to be, Watchmen “the movie“, kicks all kinds of arse.

4. DISTRICT 9

While plot holes abound and it shows it’s influences possibly too obviously, but (another first timer) Neill Blomkamp’s film overall proved itself by going beyond expectations. Mostly inhabiting the role of a sci-fi action-er with high replay value, on a technical level, it is hard to falter. Though the promising thought provoking first act turns into something a little more, well, generic, it makes the finished product no less entertaining, exihiating or powerful. Plus Sharlto Copley, playing doomed Wikus Van Der Werme, earns himself rookie of the year honours with a compelling performance.

3. MOON
2009 was not exactly coming up short in high profile science fiction films. All hyped up tremendously with either clever viral campaigns or promises of grand new movie going experiences. Its director Duncan Jones’ debut film however, that proved the most surreal of them all. Not to mention the most gripping, thought provoking and moving all driven by Sam Rockwell’s best ever performance. A unique new science fiction visionary has been born with Jones, and with this unique collaboration announcing himself to the world, one can only wait with high anticipation to see what is next for the young son of Ziggy Stardust.

2. INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS

It wouldn’t be unreasonable to say, after all the years of build up, Quentin’s WW2 epic was probably not what everyone expected, but for my money, it is definitely guilty of surpassing all expectations. A hilarious, blood filled march through Nazi occupied France, the director explodes and restrains in just the right amount, making it possibly his most accomplished work to date - Indeed it is his best since 1997’s Jackie Brown without question. Besides all that, Tarantino proves himself (again) as being unique, and even though his direction still does not quite match his way with the words, his self-confessed masterpiece is the director showing that he is capable of being a truly international filmmaker. The inspired flaunting of the multi-lingual in Basterds, cutting from French to English to German and back again, makes it seem the way things are spoken is almost a character itself. Extravagantly engrossing.

1. THE WRESTLER
Every few years I tend to watch a new film that flat out floors me. Confronts me emotionally, inspires my filmmaking brain and has me glued to the screen every time I watch it. Like my number one from the year before, There Will Be Blood, The Wrestler has cemented it‘s place as one of my favourite films of all time and an obvious choice for the title for 2009. Mesmerising and documentary-like, its style mimics its central performance being unflinching, gritty and driven by severe emotion. It is debateable whether the character of Randy is a likeable one, but director Aronofsky and screenwriter, Robert Siegel, never really ask you to decide. Literally following him through his depressive lifestyle, the film’s major achievement is that you cannot help but empathize with him - as if The Ram is a wrestler in our world. In that sense too, the film avoids over sentimentality but still manages to be profoundly affecting and at times, painful to watch. Some elements falter and prevent it from being a perfect achievement, but in my mind, it remains a tour-de-force.

Fost/Nixon (2008)

2009-10-18T22:54:00.000+08:00

Exuding class and almost effortless direction, Frost/Nixon is probably Ron Howard’s best film to date. Before giving him all the credit however, it needs to be said that the film succeeds so well mainly because Peter Morgan had already given the director a decidedly juicy script to work with. Without it, cries of boredom may well have been heard as let’s face it, this is a film merely about a few interviews between two men. Meaning, its success has more to do with writing and performances than direction. Howard does create a sleek and perfectly paced two hours of course - no mean feat in itself when you have such a dialogue driven setup. To make it compelling, almost edge of your seat material as well, is even more of an accomplishment. Ultimately, the combination of Morgan’s muscular writing and Howard’s increasingly developing flair behind the camera has proven a real winner.

Within that impressive combination is a fantastic cast from the ground up. All one can really do when the film settles in, is just sit back and be thankful. The film is so engrossing, it might be easy to forget that the subtely sublime performances are what's keeping the story moving. Playing the titular characters, the transition from the stage (where they performed it on Broadway and London) to screen for Michael Sheen and Frank Langella is smooth and without stumble. Both outstanding as David Frost and Richard Nixon respectively, one can’t go past singling out Langella as the disgraced former president. He inhabits the man to jaw dropping effect and by the end, the actor has all but vanished inside, right down to the slouch and mumbling, gruff speech. A strong supporting cast of Kevin Bacon, Sam Rockwell and Toby Jones amongst others adds impressive weight around the them. Everybody is on top form.

The decision to intercut after-the-fact reflections from the side players proved to be a smart move by Howard too, and it gives the whole thing more of a sense of a historic event - and definitely adds to the cinematic feel separating it from the confines of a theatre. It is a juxtapose that takes a minute to get used to, but overall breaking the flow of the story this way helped tell it and fittingly, gives us the point of view of everybody involved besides just our two prize fighters.

In the end, the film’s exploration of television, in an era when it's power was misunderstand by many, to Nixon’s deflated arrogance in defeat is exceptional. Frost landing his ‘confession’ and the close up - the one you can’t hide from, showing a man full of self-loathing, and the subsequent impact of that moment on the 45 million viewers, is drama at it’s best. The scene is the crux from which the whole film and indeed, the interviews themselves, were built around and if Langella didn’t pull it off, Frost/Nixon would have been a missed opportunity unimaginatively. It’s no surprise then that he does and even though the veteran actor had the stage play to perfect it, it’s still one of the most bravura performances in a long time in a film worthy of praise.

Album Review: All Shall Fall - Immortal (2009)

2009-10-18T16:33:00.000+08:00

Having anticipated Immortal’s first album in seven years for almost 12 months, I finally got my hands on it and after about three full listens, first impressions are simple: it is a punishing collection of songs. In fact, the onslaught is so much on first playing, I couldn’t even tell if it was any good. With an almost flawless production behind it, moments of brilliance do shine through without doubt and as expected, the atmosphere does reign supreme. It can’t be denied All Shall Fall is another grim, worthy frost bitten entry into the band’s legacy, but after seven years is it that much different, new or exciting? Not overly, but if you are a fan, almost any new Immortal material is an essential purchase.

Buoyed by Demonaz’s grandiose lyrics, Abbath’s cave troll vocals splice the guitar wall and pummelling drums with relief filled confidence. Perhaps surprisingly though, Fall incorporates elements from many of the band’s previous work as opposed to moving forward drastically like they did with 1999’s At the Heart of Winter. Overall, the album is short (clocking in at just over 40 minutes), but slower in tempo. Ferocious moments reminiscent of 1997’s Blizzard Beasts (‘Hordes to War’) are there, along with the epic notions of their last album, Sons of Northern Darkness (‘Unearthly Kingdom’, ‘Norden on Fire‘) and even a riff or two that sounds like it could fit into Abbath’s heavy metal-esq side project, ’I’ (’The Rise of Darkness’).

Is it all a step backwards then perhaps? I don’t think that would be fair to say as it is hardly dull. At the same time, it is definitely the sound of a band more re-finding their feet back into that wholly mythic universe of theirs. It is not a domination of it. I personally find it to be a testament to the notion that Immortal have always helmed grand plans with their art, believing in what they do almost frighteningly. If you don’t like it; it‘s of no real consequence to them. Their epic and constantly praised live shows are reminders that if you do have faith, you will be rewarded however.

Only time will tell if All Shall Fall will be end up being regarded amongst their best work, but when the disc finally spins to a stop, it and the band demand your respect. And if you call yourself a fan of extreme metal, it is hard not to look up and take notice. Despite it being a difficult album to devour, fans should rejoice while newcomers or sceptics will probably struggle to find anything new to grab them. Creating interesting Black metal in 2009 is a challenge in itself, and I think Immortal have at least proved with this "comeback", that they're still relevant.

Album Review: The Chair in the Doorway - Living Colour (2009)

2009-10-17T11:28:00.000+08:00

Most people around my age would have heard of Living Colour. Their monster 90’s hit and FM radio staple, ‘Love Rears it’s Ugly Head’ saw to that, but I think people mistakenly write them off as one hit wonders even if they still heard the anthem that was ‘Cult of Personality’ from a few years before. Far from the truth of course because despite their respect and influence within the industry since the late 80’s claiming different, 2009 sees them finally release their fifth album in 21 odd years, The Chair in the Doorway, and it’s pretty solid.

I didn’t really catch their under-the-radar released 2002 effort, Collidoscope (a record and reunion apparently born out of reaction to the 9-11 attacks), but it is known to be an auspicious release given the long time between recordings. Having disbanded after 1993’s hard-rocking opus, Stain, a few live guest appearances started to happen in the early 2000’s, then Collidoscope came after which another (recording) hiatus ensued. Luckily for us, they have regrouped yet again, with what feels like more energy than in the past, and picked up where they left off in ‘93.

With a not overly clean production, hard-hitting Helmet-esq riffs puncture the heavier numbers of Chair. Songs such as ‘Decadance’ and ‘Out of My Mind’ could be virtual Stain B-sides with their black denim attitude. Not to say they haven’t evolved beyond or in that particular sound, more that they still thankfully retain it with a passion. They have always encompassed so many styles however, it was never easy to define what their sound was. The colourful early days of Vivid and Time’s Up saw them incorporate everything from soul, rock, blues, pop, reggae, punk and metal as well. Chair still embraces them all and what is achieved is a schizophrenic combination of the harder-edged Stain and the inspired creativity of songs such as ‘Cult of Personality‘or 'Bi'.

Guitarist Vernon Reid - once touted as the next Hendrix (though more like a black Tom Morello), impresses whether espousing metal-tinged chorus riffs or providing grand sweeps in tracks such as the instant single, ‘Behind the Sun‘ & the unforgiving ‘Hard Times‘. Reid’s manic solos still remain a highlight as they did over a decade ago too. Behind it all, the simplistic but absurd brilliance of Will Calhoun’s drumming is more than complemented by the precise bass work of Doug Wimbish. Vocalist Corey Glover’s distinct tone punctuates and soars over the three piece’s impressive musicianship, giving us a collection of songs that are just a pleasure to listen too. The lyrics on Chair explore themes of identity crisis and purpose - a possible reflection on the band’s present and unpredictable future states of mind.

Overall and defying the odds, Living Colour have once again produced something that goes beyond trend or what is designated as ’mainstream’. If only they had kept it up after 1993, they would deservedly be more well known as one of the most important American rock bands - black or otherwise - in the last 20 years. Better late than never, The Chair in the Doorway sees the band pick up where they left off with definite confidence. For some it may seem lacking and only occasionally great, but for fans, it’s in impressive return to form even if it doesn’t quite match their formidable previous albums.

Film Review: Funny People (2009)

2009-10-04T16:39:00.000+08:00

In the third film from director Judd Apatow, Adam Sandler plays George Simmons, an arrogant, hugely rich movie star with a legacy of dire looking “family” blockbusters that dominate the box office. Bored with his excessive lifestyle, we meet him as his doctor explains he has a disease that seems to be incurable. Put on experimental medication, Simmons looks for happiness in his time remaining by returning to his roots as a stand up comedian. Here he runs into Ira (Seth Rogen), and they bond as Simmons asks Ira to not only write jokes for him, but become his assistant after he confides about his illness. Eventually lives start to grow, and then spiral as George becomes obsessed with getting back his ex-wife, Laura (Leslie Mann), before its too late.

It would be fair to say I had high expectations for Funny People, but at the same time not really knowing what to expect. To its credit, parts of it are gut busting hilarious and other parts equally dramatic. I was surprised by the sheer amount of crude humour used in the many stand up sequences however, given that story wise, this was probably Apatow's most mature work. It still had the director’s confidently unique trademark mixture of crude and poignant.

The main problem was the film’s second half. When it declares George is able to get better, things get bogged down finding a conclusion. For as great as Eric Bana’s appearance late in the proceedings (as Laura’s overwhelming Aussie husband, Clark), there were plenty of clumsy elements and rushed ideas that just seemed unrealistic towards the end. Relationships turn on a dime and while I feel a lot of it felt true through most of the first ninety minutes, there are moments that threw me off in the final thirty. For a film this long - though it never once felt like it was dragging, it was surprising to see such rapid extremes that appeared only to serve to conclude the story as quickly as possible.

Definitely the character of George Simmons was well realised, with his fake films looking so horrendously bad, it seemed too perfect and ironic that Apatow's longtime friend Sandler, was the lead. He was great in that sense then, but I truly believe the actor did not have to stretch much when his true nature (i.e. cruelly humorous arsehole) comes out in parts of the film. Seth Rogen is very good as Ira. Playing more down to Earth than usual, this is probably his best performance I‘ve seen. Aubrey Plaza as a friend, Daisy, was a highlight and the sheer number of cameos was bewildering, but fun. Judd seems to like to cast his wife in his films, and it started to feel a little self-indulgent by the end unfortunately despite the gorgeousness of Leslie Mann. Jason Schwartzman and Jonah Hill were integral as Ira’s roommates, but nothing overly special - though their sitcom, Yo Teach! was the perfect Welcome Back, Kotter parody.

Overall it was a good movie, but with obvious flaws. The narrative - which made it feel like a film in pieces rather than flowing, and Judd's direction being the major culprits. Direction wise, it was pretty bad at times - at least compared to his previous film, Knocked Up. Any of the deeper messages explored are only really bubbling under the surface, and perhaps a second watch will help me realise that this film works better than I think it does now. So far then, Funny People is merely an applaudable - if a little clunky - achievement.

District 9 (2009)

2009-09-16T21:00:00.001+08:00

District 9 is the name given to the vicinity used to house the 1.8 million members of an alien race found inside a giant mother ship after it stalls itself above Johannesburg, South Africa in 1982. Cut to 2010 and MNU, a government agency created to handle any an all alien related situations, has decided to relocate them - given D9 now resembles little more than a slum, and send in newly promoted everyman, Wikus Van Der Werme (Sharlto Copley) to head up the task. Wikus and his team travel to the foreboding camp to issue notices to its inhabitants about the move. As if inevitably, everything starts to go very wrong for both the aliens and Wikus himself.

Presented in a pseudo-doco style, we receive a briefing at the start of the film on the twenty odd year history of events with interviews from several people involved. This is all faultlessly done and given the upmost realism, especially in the "archival" footage. These scenes also hint at an incident that was about to happen. The opening centres the film's intelligent themes that range from comments on third world society, social perceptions, racism, violence, immigration and media saturation. Soon it does become though, for better or worse, an eye popping action piece complete with Starship Troopers-esque violence and over the top alien weaponry.

One of the first things you do notice about District 9 however is the jaw dropping CGI. The seamless looking creatures (dubbed derogatorily as "prawns" due to their appearance), interact and move in a way that truly surpasses all expectations. The "humanity" given to them is a major achievement and not once does it remove you out of the genuinely compelling story. It is the story that keeps you intrigued, bewildered and devastated equally as it plays out in it's feverish pace. First time actor Copley excels as Wikus, combining innocent humour with downright brutality (a trait all the humans seem to share here); it is hard to imagine a big name drawling a fake accent and pulling it off any better.

The director has hinted that his main influences were the hardcore sci-fi action movies of the 1980's. The works of Paul Verhoeven and films such as Predator, Aliens and the Terminator. This becomes obvious as the film goes on and despite what the first hour potentially offers us, it does feel more akin with those influences than one might have first thought. There are also obvious nods to the likes of David Cronenberg, but this is action sci-fi - or at least that is what it becomes. It should be said that the blatant plot holes and occasionally clunky script do expose it as an imperfect movie, but no such things ever really halt the adrenalin or excitement. Blomkamp has labelled it a "South African Hollywood film", and that is probably an apt description, though it is more than fair to say that this Peter Jackson produced effort definitely offers more depth and emotion - not to mention social and political commentary, than your average US blockbuster.

A film definitely in two opposing halves, overall is a major accomplishment despite some truly, easily ignored flaws. On a technical level, it is hard to falter. Though the promising, brilliant first act turns into something a little more, well, generic, it makes the finished product no less entertaining or powerful. I hope that given the opened ended conclusion, a Blomkamp helmed sequel is not too far away.

Film Review: Public Enemies (2009)

2009-08-27T21:22:00.000+08:00

On paper Public Enemies looked like a dream come true for any genre film fan. An authentically re-created gangster flick about John Dillinger, directed by Michael Mann with Mr. Charisma himself, Johnny Depp, essaying the infamous bank robber. Couldn't possibly fail, right? The tricky part however, is that when you are doing a film about a real life person or event, you have two ways you can go about it - make it as accurate as possible, or let your “artistic license” guide the story over solid facts. Sometimes the latter is better, and certainly can make for a better piece of entertainment. Enemies is undeniably in the latter group. The historical accuracy of John Dillinger’s life is dubiously muddled and lacking depth here, but without doubt, it is also presented in a way that keeps you glued to the screen.

The film’s biggest downfall is clearly the screenplay. The director has not exactly let it soar despite still fluffing the facts to his advantage, making it an off kilter hybrid of biopic and blockbuster, ala the (more accomplished) Mann produced, Martin Scorsese directed, The Aviator. Granted the dialogue is smart, snappy and significant at the right moments, it still only serves to help cover up the overall clumsiness of the writing. The relationships are not explored enough to have significant meaning or emotional impact, the jail escapes feel far too easy for Dillinger and the robberies, well, they are too short to be overly compelling. The action however is well done; an exciting forest shoot out midway through is handled perfectly by the HD video Mann favours so much these days. There is no denying Public Enemies is very accomplished on a technical level. An award worthy production design recreates the era immaculately, the editing is sharp and the score rises at all the right emotional peaks. The substance of the story just fails to match it unfortunately.

The performances are fairly good and even though Christian Bale, as the complicated Melvin Pervis, is often labelled with the “wooden” tag of late, I saw enough in his wordless nuances for it to be a convincing portrayal for me. I think it was a nicely subtle effort from him. Of course, I lapped up Depp’s (or Dillinger’s?) charm for sure. Depp seems to have become a very effortless actor - making it a fine line telling if whether he is actually being very good or just average. I thought he was good here, but again, the uber-cool dialogue he drawls probably helped to convince me of the former. The support cast was excellent. So many familiar faces; from TV actors to some older, recognisable character performers, the standouts were easily Stephen Graham and Billy Crudup, as Baby Face Nelson and J. Edgar Hoover respectively.

If you like it, the next obvious question seems to be: is it in the same class as Heat? The short answer is not even close, despite several similarities to the 1995 film (including the line “We here for the bank’s money, not yours”). To be fair, it was always a lofty height to actually reach for a director who seemed to be losing his touch with his last couple of films. What cannot be denied though, is that at its core, Public Enemies is solid entertainment and for better or worse, Mann’s best effort in a while. Worth it for the escapism, not the history lesson.

John Hughes R.I.P

2009-08-10T18:56:00.000+08:00

John Hughes, one of my favourite film directors and a film making icon to angst ridden teens the world over, died last Thursday the 6th of August of a heart attack. He was 59.

Hughes’s films were equally impressionable and hugely entertaining to me as a pre-teen in the 80’s and a teen in the early 90’s. Films such as The Breakfast Club, Weird Science and Ferris Bueller’s Day Off were integral in forming my initial love for movies. He taped into the mind of a teenager like no director before or after as a writer/director, melding hilarious moments and powerful drama to truly memorable effect. His later films, Planes Trains and Automobiles and Uncle Buck saw him moving into more family oriented comedy drama, proving his ability as a writer - something that was definitely his greatest gift, was unique and without peer. To this day, the blueprint of the man’s films still casts a heavy influence on all others who work within the genre of the "dramedy".

Even though he gave up directing in the early 90’s - though continuing to write, sometimes under pseudonyms, his death was still a shock to this fan and he will be sorely missed. His legacy of films remains a sign of an era, but also a body of work that remains timeless.

John Hughes

1950 - 2009
R. I. P

Drag Me to Hell (2009)

2009-08-02T22:28:00.001+08:00

The idea of cult director Sam Raimi returning to his horror roots with Drag Me to Hell was an exciting prospect. Add to that enthusiasm an impressive trailer and strong word of mouth and you've got some fairly high expectations. Virtually from the get go, they're almost bettered with a prologue that deafeningly slams you into your seat. It's a powerful effects belter and provides early evidence that Raimi is in his element here and that he is definitely approaching it with a nostalgic attitude. The fact that the original treatment was drafted up not long after Army of Darkness was completed is not surprising.

The thunderous prologue gets the ball rolling informing us of the existence of a demon, the Lamia, who can be summoned via a gypsy curse to torment its victim before, after three days, literally drags them to hell. Unfortunately for farm-girl-all-grown-up Christine (Alison Lohman), rejecting an old woman’s begging to grant an extension on her mortgage at the bank where she works, proves to be a disaster. The old woman, Ms. Ganush (Lorna Raver) subsequently unleashes said curse on Christine for her revenge. As the three days play out, we see a strong willed, but morally flawed Christine dragged through a briar patch of unseen spirits, bodily fluids, hallucinations and insects as the Lamia prepares to take her soul. Seeking help in the form of fortune tellers and séances, she is taken on a roller coaster ride with Raimi pulling out all the swift camera zooms, tension building edits - with brilliant use of sound effects, putting us through the ringer as much as Christine herself. It’s a fast paced ninety minutes and never really lets up until after the startling ending.

Alison Lohman shines as Christine, being in almost every scene. Her flaws as a person revel themselves subtly as she slowly starts to lose her mind pushed to her limits during the three days. The supports are fleshed out well for such a film, with Raver’s Ganush a deliciously grotesque creation in particular. The score, handled by original Hellraiser composer, Christopher Young, is suitably gothic adding plenty of depth to the stand alone scare tactics of the sound editing. Overall, Drag Me to Hell is a tour de-force of unmistakable Raimi style and outrageous humour, packed with nods to the films his reputation was built on and a virtual instant classic itself. A totally self contained, well-crafted tale of the supernatural assembled around an idea befitting the genre - all without steeping to far into the ludicrous (we‘re in the territory where leap of faith plot devices or not so subtle twists are all a part of package after all). Darker in tone to Evil Dead 2 for example, but still with plenty of similar (intentional) belly laughs.

Besides it being that pure entertainment indulgence, the film is a revealing stake through the heart of the contemporary Hollywood horror movie genre which though it might be shunned by some of the stiffer filmgoers out there not familiar with the director‘s earlier films, it retains the spirit of what makes horror such a fun experience. At times, it felt like Raimi was rewarding the fans for their patience putting up with so much torture obsessed and remake dross over the last ten years. Its flaws are minor and resemble little more than forgivable genre traits making Drag Me to Hell a unique, memorable entry into what can sometimes be a gruelling, unfun catalogue of recent efforts.

Film Review: State of Play (2009)

2009-07-05T13:51:00.000+08:00

As expected after his previous first three memorable films, director Kevin McDonald has put together a technically flawless looking picture with State of Play. One with great performances and a script that at first, I worried might suffer from having too many cooks (it has three credited writers). Couple this with the fact that it is an American interpretation of an already well-respected BBC mini-series. It is relieving to report that the writing is re-soundly excellent considering that the subject matter could have potentially become derivative. The details of chasing leads and deadlines amongst a busy, yet struggling major newspaper for example, was shown believably and grippingly. Perhaps not on the level of similar themed films, it stands up well by having a substantial modern theme of online based “new-media” competing with the once leading edge print standard. Happily, the film flies the flag defiantly for the latter, with both insight and humour.

Working as a reporter for The Washington Globe, reporter Cal McAffrey (Russell Crowe) sets out to a routine murder victim headline, but as more facts start to manifest, a much bigger story begins to unfold of a political cover-up involving defence force distributors, corrupt senators and even more murders. One of the main ideas behind State of Play however, is the parallels that appear between Cal’s handling of a hugely expanding conspiracy story and a police investigation. “It’s not a story! It’s a case”, Cal is abruptly told by the chief detective at one point. Nevertheless, Cal is determined for the same objective - the truth. The tension unfolds subtly with a nice cat and mouse sequence at the centre making it less a droning ‘talky’ as it is a gripping thriller with constant, finely realised twists. Kevin MacDonald knows this genre well and hardly falters bringing the script to life.

Ben Affleck as Senator Stephen Collins at the centre of all the interest suits his role and played it as well as one could have expected; straight laced with few extrovert qualities. Helen Mirren’s newspaper boss shines through with little to do and representing the new age of ‘blog reporting’, Rachel McAdams’ Della Frye counters Crowe’s McAffrey surprisingly well. Russ is top flight as always, proving that his ability to inhabit a man and all that makes him tick, makes him almost second to none within his generation of performers. Robin Wright-Penn channels her real-to-life wife scorned experiences with not surprising ease, adding weight to the supporting cast alongside small but pivotal roles from Jeff Daniels and Jason Bateman.

With such written films however, genre rules always tend to appear and even though the revelatory ending did not feel worse or better for the film, I might have been more satisfied if a reasonable, but rushed extra twist at the eleventh hour wasn't thrown in. Overall, I was thoroughly impressed despite thinking it doesn’t quite match McDonald's outstandingly tense Last King of Scotland. It is easily one of the best films of 2009 so far and as a film for adults goes, it’s a damn fine entertainment.

Film Review: Diary of the Dead (2008)

2009-07-05T12:22:00.000+08:00

For his fifth zombie film, genre legend George A. Romero chose to re-stage the beginning three days and nights of his initial outbreak, thus making Diary of the Dead forever linked (for better or worse) with his original film, Night of the Living Dead, more than any of the others. Rather than just being a re-tread of that groundbreaking movie however, Romero opts to modernize the situation, giving us a very 21st century essay of the events.

This concept is echoed mainly through Dairy’s literal presentation, with the whole film viewed through the home video recordings of one Jason Creed (Joshua Close) which has been spliced together into a film within the film, “The Death of Death”. Jason’s motive is to upload his footage as they try out run the situation to offer, what he believes, the media is failing to do, by not covering the events truthfully and without censorship. Yes the media is firmly the target or Romero’s angst here, though somewhat less veiled than his other films sub-texts’. Diary is a small film in almost every concern, including its ambitions.

What is noticeable about Diary though, is the numerous homage’s to earlier films of the director (Dawn of the Dead, The Crazies), in-jokes and even a cameo from the man himself. This all proves that it was a much more labour of love than his previous effort, the decent but studio-driven Land of the Dead. Happy to be returning to his independent roots, it shows with his fans being rewarded with plenty of in-the-know quirks. These will be lost on non-Romero fanatics however and thus it is ultimately more enjoyable if you are one. Not to say that it is alienating, rather that it is made for a certain type of audience and if you are not part of it, you’re less likely to enjoy the film as a whole.

On top of that, as a film it has its problems. Of the leads, only Debra (Michelle Morgan) & the Professor (Scott Wentworth) really stand out. The whole idea of the internet being a lone truth telling hero amongst society‘s great lying media is a bit muddled and unconvincing at times. However, it comes from a rushed script that if expanded a bit more, could have proved more feasible. Its surprisingly short length doesn’t help and it is over all very quickly. The slight lack of zombie carnage may disappoint some gore hounds, but there is some great gore moments of course with Romero proving, even though zombie is the ‘new black‘ in Hollywood, he’s still unique when it comes to putting his beloved undead on screen. Overall, it is a worthy (re) telling of the zombie apocalypse, which initially was only planned for a much more subdued, direct-to DVD release. That might have actually benefited the film, as it is strictly for Romero hordes - anyone else might be hard pressed to see what all the fuss is about.

Finally, the biggest issue by far is the fact that the director made it in the first place. Part of me does wish that “going back to the well”, as Romero has done with here, is not the best he has left to offer. I’m not sure how many more films he has in him, but it would be nice to see something different than him clinging onto a legacy he can’t really match anymore. There is still fun to be had with Diary, and it is a very well put together effort, it just seems all very unfortunately forgettable. It would be a great film if he hadn’t already made it better 35 years ago.

Film Review: Trees Lounge (17-05-09)

2009-05-18T19:12:00.000+08:00

The title of this finely humble film, Trees Lounge, is the name of a New Jersey bar that acts as thirty something Tommy Basilio’s (Steve Buscemi) second home throughout it‘s running time. We initially find him hung-over, waking up in the Trees fifteen minutes after last call, demanding a shot of Wild Turkey. Tommy has just been fired, broken up with his pregnant girlfriend of eight years whose now involved with his once friend and former boss Rob (Anthony LaPaglia). Despite unable to keep his own car running, Tommy mooches around town looking for work as a mechanic, but spends most of his time getting drunk at the Trees making strained if appropriate acquaintances with some of the locals. Namely one Mike (Mark Boone Junior), who himself has his own domestic issues but has chosen to spend his “vacation” coming to the Trees everyday.

One thing becomes clear to all around Tommy - including his family, that he is a bit of a sad sack loser. A leech that expects everything but is unwilling to do the work required for a person to change their life situation. Unable to really get over his previous relationship or find work, he ends up taking over his recently deceased Uncle’s Ice-Cream truck, causing more trouble than it’s worth involving the seventeen-year-old niece of his former girlfriend.

Made in 1996, Trees Lounge reminds you of what a real independent film feels like. In recent years, the line seems to have become blurred in the mainstream as too who or what exactly constitutes such a thing. However, this film is the debut work of a true artist in writer/director/star Buscemi. Made for less than two million dollars, the film’s confronting reality of the almost pointlessness of life at times, alongside an ensemble of great performances from the likes of Junior, Chloe Sevigny, Elizabeth Bracco and Daniel Baldwin give the film a real spirit and ironic humour.

Buscemi himself, as the central Tommy, plays out a meditation in all things loserdom excellently. Bad choices, selfishness, alienation, you name it; Tommy justifies such a label to himself and to all around him. Coupled with all that happens up until the poignant, almost depressing ending, it is difficult to sympathise with or for him. Not that Buscemi as writer/director expects or even wants us too. The laidback, but hardly laconic script slowly draws out circumstance in a very observatory way avoiding influencing the audience too much about how we should feel about these people. We can only gauge their actions, not really react.

The lesson then is that life is what you make it - and sitting around in a dive bar all day will not help your cause. Tommy, and many like him, are destructive people to all who are close, never fully realising until it is too late. In short, and incorporating a great soundtrack to boot, Trees Lounge is a deeply humorous, albeit bleak slice of life that, if you let it, can help put your own into perspective too.

Film Review: 10 Rillington Place (18-04-09)

2009-04-20T20:16:00.000+08:00

Made in 1971 and set during the 1940’s, 10 Rillington Place tells the story of real life UK serial killer, John Reginald Christie, who murdered several women (including his wife) and destroyed the lives of a young couple who rented his upstairs flat. Distraught at the idea of having another baby they cannot afford, the couple, Beryl and Timothy Evans, turn to Christie who manipulates them into letting him conduct an amateur abortion with murderous results.

There is apparently still some controversy in the UK regarding these events despite Christie eventually confessing and being hanged. Regardless of what really did happen, this an amazing film. Horrific and intense - though with little actual onscreen violence, director Richard Fleischer’s effort is easily one of the best ever made about a serial killer and reminiscent of a similar masterwork, 1960's Peeping Tom.

At the centre of the film is two brilliant performances by two of Britain’s best actors. Richard Attenborough’s John Christie is a chillingly cold portrayal. No doubt an influence on certain elements of Anthony Hopkins’s essay of one Hannibal Lector, he is a soulless man, his inadequacies’ fuelling his need to murder, boarding up his victims inside the home’s crawlspace or burying them in his back garden. Opposite him is a young John Hurt, outstanding as the simple-minded, naïve Evans. He stands little chance against Christie’s manipulation of the facts during an eventual trial involving both men. Both rise to the challenge, being utterly convincing in their interpretations.

Based on a book written in 1961, it is the perfectly sombre realisation of post-war Britain that first strikes you as a major achievement for the film. The score is muted, barely rearing it's eerie head helping the film produce an even more creepy atmosphere as number 10 itself becomes a quiet house of horrors. Despite all it’s flawless moments of construction however, the pace does lag getting started, making it not easy to get into. Regardless, 10 Rillington Place's main intention is to highlight a certain dark chapter in UK legal history as well as examine capitol punishment unflinchingly. In that sense, in succeeds remarkably. See it for the acting, stick it out, and admire it for everything else it manages to accomplish.

Film Review: Watchmen (10-04-09)

2009-04-12T13:10:00.000+08:00

With it‘s bleak concepts, black humour, non-linear narrative, convincing script and the occasional superb output of violence - bordering on squeamishly cartoon and ultra realistic, Watchmen makes for a very entertaining two and a half hours without - thankfully - overly pandering to the tent pole crowd. Everything on the surface points to it being a blockbuster, but it is not what you would expect. It comes across a dystopian offspring of The Dark Knight and Alfonso Cuarón’s Children of Men, and though it never tries to bury it’s comic book origins, it ultimately still feels more sci-fi than fantasy. Having never read the graphic novel, I can only applaud director Zack Synder for being able to achieve a certain reality here though. The Watchmen universe is a beautifully overcast one that from the first frame in The Comedian’s apartment or the outstanding history montage that is the opening credits - complete with Bob Dylan crooning “The times they are a-Changing” (a sign of things to come for the film’s unconventional but outstanding soundtrack), has you rooted in it’s sense of place almost as quickly as a Dr. Manhattan teleportation.

Set in an alternate 1985 to our own, with none other than Richard Nixon sleazing his way through a third term as US president, the world is on the brink of nuclear war with both Russia and the US having their fingers poised on the buttons. From the start of the film, we are already at “five minutes to midnight” - midnight being the point at which war is unavoidably imminent. Amongst all the chaos of this and an already turbulent world history, a story unfolds of a group of costumed vigilantes that has been active since the 1940’s. First branded as the Minutemen and later, when a new younger group take the reigns, the Watchmen. However, by the time the cold war story takes focus, the Watchmen have completely disbanded after being outlawed. One of the most recognisable of them is Eddie Blake aka The Comedian. His history is relevant to the story in sutble ways, and things are set in motion after he is brutally murdered in the opening scene. Dr. Manhattan is also a key figure - one who glows blue and has the perceived ability of a god after an accident changed him from a normal man to something otherworldly prone to helping the government get out of a bind (the Vietnam war for example). The film eventually expands into much broader territory beyond the Watchmen themselves, despite them staying completely central to it all. The story in fact is so encompassing, I will not even try to summarize it all, even if as some say, it couldn’t possibly be as deep as the much lauded source novel.

The casting proves to be spot on with almost everybody a seemingly perfect fit for their respective roles, particularly Patrick Wilson as the almost too-sensitive Nite Owl, and the brilliant Jackie Earle Haley as the hard-as-nails Rorschach. Some scenes or lines do fall a bit flat - while it is impressive to hear Rorschach yell “I’m not locked in here with you, you’re locked in here with me!” during a prison scuffle for example, it’s impossible to not cringe slightly at the same time, but it surely comes with the territory. By deconstructing (amongst other things) the superhero concept the way he has, Alan Moore’s Watchmen is a unique beast, and even though I’ve never put much stock in Zack Synder as a filmmaker before, he clearly has stepped up and proven that he is capable of handling the material. I wait anxiously for the director’s cut to make the film feel even more complete, as watching the movie, and especially during the second half, it becomes clear that Synder’s true vision has been cropped down with a few parts feeling not only rushed, but almost out of place. These are trivial flaws but a director’s cut will no doubt give an even fuller, more rewarding film experience.

The overall ideas and concept of Watchmen may have stemmed from Alan Moore’s book, making comparisons here unfair, but the film, as Zack Synder’s Watchmen, is a worthy achievement that seems to have done the impossible: something that can be enjoyed by those familiar with the source material and those that are not. It can be heavy going at times for someone expecting say, Ironman, but overall, it works despite probably not being as philosophical as it wants or deserves to be.

Film Review: Gran Torino (02-03-09)

2009-03-03T18:38:00.000+09:00

Gran Torino's minimal story is certainly a relevant and emotional one, but the fact that the production seemed to be rushed so it to be ready and able to contend within the so-called 'awards season' exposures its flaws too greatly to be able to ignore them (which, when the dust settled, failed to garner any Oscar noms despite several other highly regarded nods leading up to them). Maybe I'm being too cynical about it all, but it felt like Oscar bait. Still, it was not the major reason why it failed to deliver for me the way the director's more recent output, such as Million Dollar Baby or Mystic River, didn't for example. It may have it's roots firmly stemming from a more independent film mindset, but that doesn't make it better. But then maybe those films shouldn't be compared with this, such a more personal exercise for Eastwood.

The film's title comes from the beloved car Walt Kowalski (Eastwood) owns as well as having his hands literally in it's production "back '72” at the Ford factory where he worked for fifty years. The grizzled Korean War veteran is now retired and finds that his not so glamorous neighbourhood has been infiltrated with disrespectful gang youths and Asian (Hmong) families he has more than a little trouble accepting live next door. Walt is a straight shooter, and his prejudice attitude defines his character. Coupled with the estranged relationship he has with his two sons and the recent death of his long time wife, he is now a lonely, angry man. He smokes and drinks constantly despite coughing up blood regularly, uses terms such as gook, slopes, spooks and zipper head to the recipient's faces and pulls his rifle on anybody spending too much uninvited time on his lawn.

As the film unfolds, Walt slowly breaks down his walls and after intervening in a tussle involving gang members and his neighbours he finds himself befriending the very people that he had no time for. Confirming this, he and Thao, a young man from his neighbour's family, form a skeletal, but invaluable father/son bond. However, gang members persist to harass Thao and his family with violence and intimidation. The film falters the most here as the structure and dialogue used to frame the initial story comes off as unrealistic and clichéd too often. Perhaps more experienced actors or a more authentic script may have helped fix these flaws, but when Walt's savage, racist barbs are what's keeping the audience's attention - both intentionally and unintentionally funny; it becomes clear something is missing. It is just not convincing enough and the first half of the film clunks along before the more emotional driven second redeems the story as best it can.

In short, the character of Walt is a thinly veiled Harry Callahan or Gunny Highway living out his twilight years, which makes it perfect fodder for Eastwood. Fans of the gruff exterior, straight talkin' cynical bastard he is famous for will have plenty to enjoy here. Indeed, it is a tailor made, obviously very personal film to the director, amplified by his passionate performance. It almost seems to be a closing chapter in many ways for those particular much-loved characters of his in that sense too. If it starred anybody but Clint, it could have been a much different film. As it stands, parts of it almost seems like caricature or parody because of it. This is a shame as the drama wants to be and deserves to be heavy going, but by the time the credits roll with Eastwood himself mouthing an ode to the car at the centre of it all, Gran Torino only really feels mildly moving despite saving it's most poignant and emotional moments for the excellent final act.

Film Review: Milk (23-01-09)

2009-01-27T14:35:00.000+09:00

The centre piece of Gus Van Sant’s film Milk, is Harvey Milk himself; A forty year old gay man passionate about changing how his fellow citizens see his “people”, but at the same time unsatisfied with his current existence. Seizing the moment, Milk moves to San Francisco with his partner and sets up a camera shop. Seeing the place of his work and residence, Castro Street, become a growing hub for the gay community, as well as witnessing his friends beaten and killed whilst being ignored by the local police because of their lifestyle, Milk decides to try to make a difference. Eventually he and his team, along with the help of the community to which he finds himself the principal voice, create enough noise to have him elected into public office. As Harvey’s influence grows, so does disgust and confusion towards homosexuals in the San Francisco district and beyond.

The biopic of late has had a bit of resurgence thanks in part to the commercial success of films such as Ray, Walk the Line and The Aviator. All were decent films, but strictly on a mainstream appeal. The story of a celebrated gay rights activist’s last eight years alive is one that does not strike you as having as much conventional mainstream attraction, confirmed by it being very political in its chronicle and choosing not too show our central protagonist’s younger years for example. In the hands of curious, yet accomplished director Gus Van Sant however, the finished product, which resembles less a biopic of one man, than an account of a moment in time, is a film delivered in a way that it can be embraced by the broader audience, whilst retaining a bit of the director’s natural quirk.

To say Sean Penn inhabits the central role of Harvey Milk could almost be an understatement. The hardened performing veteran, with help from selective prosthetics, evolves into the personality with such ease and grace, you wouldn’t believe he was the same man behind a character such as the intimidating Jimmy Markum from 2003‘s Mystic River. Emile Hirsch and James Franco deserve mention for their equally passionate turns, but it is Josh Brolin as Milk’s political contemporary and eventual enemy, Dan White, who shines the most in the supporting roles. His portrayal is both subtle and unhinged. Plus it is an achievement provoking empathy over demonising someone who would be best described as ’the bad guy’ in a film.

Unique visual and sound editing helps the film greatly, giving it distinctive structure as we jump between Harvey documenting his thoughts on a tape recorder, to the actual events of the time. This device also helps distance Milk from being just another biopic. While it is still immensely watch able, the film is not without it‘s flaws. To be fair though, most of the concerns are unavoidable when working in such a genre, and being political by nature, Dustin Lance Black’s Oscar nominated screenplay still avoids getting bogged down with such jargon, allowing the emotion to filter in - although perhaps not enough to wholly satisfy. Overall, bringing such an important man and moment to life in what is seen as a medium more focused on entertaining than reporting, the combination of director, screenwriter and actor have given us the best we could have hoped for.

Mastodon's Crack the Skye Cover!

2009-01-27T10:44:00.000+09:00

Mastodon's Crack the Skye artwork has been revealed!

Keeping a similar feeling to 2006's Blood Mountain, it's epic in everyway! Check out under the pic for a link to a huge 1000x1000 version. Current release date is March 24th with the first single, Divinations apparently coming out on the 27th of Jan in the States...so in just a few hours then.

Mastodon are one of my current top three favourite bands and have been since late 2005. CtS has been a long time coming. Blood mountain blew me away and if I had too choose, it would be a contender for my fav album in the 00's so far. Early reviews of CtS have pointed to a much more rock based, prog sound (which was always going to be the case), which just makes my expectations even higher.

Expect gushing and/or unapproved man-love for the lads as the album release date gets closer....How sweet would this look on a vinyl??

LARGE: http://albumart.mastodonrocks.com/

Film Review: The Wrestler (18-01-09)

2009-01-21T09:15:00.000+09:00

“Doc, I’m a professional wrestler” is the response from Randy “The Ram” Robinson (Mickey Rourke) when after just having bypass surgery following a heart attack, he is told by his doctor that he must stop putting steroids into his system and can only perform mild exercise. The significance of that assertion to Randy’s story of a once great wrestling icon, now twenty years later relegated to Community Hall matches and unsatisfying signing appearances, is cemented by it being said with such conviction and pride. He is a wrestler. That is what he does. That is what he knows. Rourke embodies Ram and all his flaws in such a sincere way; the authenticity of his colossal performance raises the bar for realism.

Unconventional director Darren Aronofsky has shaped a documentary-like film with The Wrestler, and like the central performance is unflinching, gritty and driven by severe emotion. It is debateable whether the character of Randy is a likeable one, but you are not really asked to choose anyhow. We follow him through his present day-to-day life and the film’s major achievement is that you cannot help but empathize with him - as if it was real life. As if The Ram is a wrestler in our world. In that sense too, the film avoids sentimentality but still manages to be profoundly affecting and at times, painful to watch.

It is clear Mickey Rourke has drawn on the parallels between his real-life erratic career and Randy’s. No doubt it has helped the performance, and it’s a tribute to our director for pushing the actor to dig deep. The reward is a fascinating, hugely immersive journey regardless of Ram’s motives, outcomes or choices. Evan Rachael-Wood and Marisa Tomei complete the roles of Randy’s estranged daughter and aging stripper cum-love interest respectively. Both shine in their emotional responsibility, but Tomei’s Cassidy, whose story mirrors Randy’s in many ways, is finely convincing.

The deft cutting is reminiscent of earlier Aronofsky films, Pi and Requiem for a Dream, and works well here to keep the pace brisk and break up potentially tedious dialogue-free scenes, as well as adding energy to ones such as when Randy is working behind a supermarket Deli counter. A subtle, precise acoustic score from Clint Mansell blends appropriately amongst the eighties hair metal Randy holds so dear, ultimately confirming that on a technical level, The Wrestler is scarcely flawed. The wrestling matches themselves flow with authenticity. It’s a credit to both Rourke and Aronofsky for not flinching during the handful of fights shown - making them feel real was essential, and they‘ve completely succeeded.

Exploring a relatively uncharted world in cinema, scriptwriter Robert D. Siegel gives us material that on the surface does resemble a clichéd story, but praise must be given to the eye for detail towards the underground wrestling circuit he demonstrates. It effectively kills any chance of formula pulling us out of Randy’s psyche of frustration and eventual acceptance of what he believes his life to amount too. Struggling to complete any relationship he has besides the ones he shares with his loyal fans, it’s seeing Randy risking his life trying to hold on to that what makes him feel human the most, which is genuinely heart-breaking. It's also what make The Wrestler an unmissable film.

More of Spike's Wild Things revealed...!

2009-01-17T19:19:00.001+09:00

So if there is anybody out there whose stumbled upon this hotchpotch of opinion known as a blog and is excited about Spike Jonze’s upcoming film adaptation of the children’s book, Where the Wild Things Are, you’re in good company. It sits amongst my top five most anticipated films of ‘09 alongside Martin Scorsese’s Shutter Island, Wes Anderson’s Fantastic Mr. Fox, Charlie Kaufman’s directorial debut, Synedoche New York and The Wolf man remake. The latter rest assured is simply the guilty pleasure of seeing top bloke Benico Del Toro as a lycanthrope - a creature I have a lot of time for.

Jonze’s vision has been under a cloud of “complications” it seems since it began production almost a good two years ago. This was always going to be a film with a heavy post-production period, but rumours of the studio initially rejecting the director’s first cut, requiring re-shoots and worst of all, potentially replacing Spike, seemed to have turned out to be just that; rumours. Even so, the film was pushed back too over a year from its initial release date. Jonze never commented, but words from the studio’s execs and one Forest Whittaker (he voices one of the Wild Things along side Tony Soprano himself, James Gandolfini) claiming all was well, was….well, reassuring.

Now….brand new pics have surfaced after only really seeing glimpses in the past and all I can say is that they do not disappoint. The Wild Things themselves look freakin' gorgeous. I dare say the puppet master, Jim Henson, would have been proud of this kind of work. Of course, if you have ever read or seen and interview with one Spike Jonze (or at the very least, seen one of his two films), you would know he is quite the quirky chap. Not content with just releasing pics, the man whose all about coolness and oddness equally, has decided to take advantage of the promotional opportunity and print these images on a limited edition run of skateboards from the boarding fanatic’s own company.

Is this the coolest shit or what? I think so.

Film Review: Bottle Shock (11-01-09)

2009-01-17T13:39:00.000+09:00

Set in 1976, Alan Rickman is shop owner and wine connoisseur, Steven Spurrier, who looking to broaden the world’s palette and break the stranglehold French vinos had over the market at the time, heads to California in the perception that something ’big’ is happening amongst it’s vineyards. Not expecting major quality, he meets a variety of locals and decides their wine is actually good enough for a tasting competition he is holding back in France. The rest they say, is history.

For a film based on a seemingly important chapter in wine history, Bottle Shock’s major flaw is its almost forced elements of the relationships between its leads. It is not that padding such a distinctive story with dramatic liberties is bad, more that it is just not done that well here. A film like this does need something to keep the interest of non-wine aficionados in the audience, so the idea is acceptable, but the script fails to deliver a little more than a few solid moments of comedy and drama amongst a traditional Hollywood relationship arc. It is nothing you haven’t seen before, but its positives make it worth a watch (only once) with Rickman and wine fans certainly getting the most out of it.

Bill Pullman and Freddy Rodriquez add some convincing dramatic weight to their roles of stubborn father to Chris Pine’s Bo and Mexican cellar rat with wine making ambitions of his own respectively, but they’re never given really too much to work with. Pine is fine enough as our lead who needs to pull his attitude, but the surfer-hippy wig he dons was borderline overly distracting to be honest. Rachael Taylor’s character of Sam is performed well enough I suppose, but it would probably help if I felt she needed to be there at all. The love triangle between her, Bo and Rodriquez’s Gustavo is clearly the films weakest link. As expected, Rickman is playing to type, but he is so much fun, every scene he is in is the film’s highlights, particularly ones involving him and a slightly eccentric Dennis Farina.

Director Randall Miller follows suit with the standardized story by not really being overly inspiring, though the California scenery is on show in all its bright glory, which makes the experience easy on the eye, also dubiously allowing the script’s flaws to wash over a little easier. Comparisons to the superior Sideways (one of my favourite films of recent years) would be unfair to both films and even though Bottle Shock would have benefited expanding on the actual wine making process over the love triangle guff, as it stands it is predictable, enjoyable fare that you could do a lot worse than with your favourite chardonnay on a lazy afternoon.

Film Review: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (27-12-08)

2009-01-17T13:05:00.000+09:00

I'd assume if one was to think about the technology and money that helped bring this affecting story to life, it would be almost intimidating. To have just about every other element of the film, technical or otherwise, bond so wonderfully that it makes you forget about how Brad Pitt’s face is on that old man’s body, and just see Pitt as an old man, is something that deserves praise. I hope Fincher didn’t have too many sleepless nights over it though, because from the opening oddity about a backwards clock and the man who invented it, we are transported into what resembles an intriguing modern fairy tale. It seems to have an aura that few films do or attempt to create anymore. Something that even if you did not enjoy it, it stays with you, but if you did, it is nothing short of utterly absorbing.

Themes of opportunity, love, growth, life and death are consistent as we follow the unambiguous linear storyline, constantly moving forward. Engaging and quirky characters interweave the film throughout, with roundly excellent performances from all involved. Beyond Pitt’s effortless essay of Benjamin, Blanchett again proving she is the best female actor working today, Taraji Henson’s Queenie and Jason Flemyng as Thomas Button, deserve to be mentioned. The narration used to tell and introduce is delivered as well as one could have hoped with Pitt’s New Orleans’s drawl finely convincing.

I recoiled initially from the chosen narrative, of the journal being read by Daisy’s daughter to her on her deathbed. Beside the fact that this device brings unwanted comparisons to the vastly inferior, Forest Gump (note the same screenwriter here), a cut back to Daisy’s hospital room in present day, too rue or explain her regret about a certain situation, started to grow slightly tedious and almost into muddy cliché. Luckily Fincher pulls back before it becomes a nuisance or overly sentimental. It’s a close call, and I perhaps would rather have just seen the story unfold without it.

The film’s sword - the one for which it lives and dies by, is that for all it’s tear jerking storyline and emotional performances, it’s sentimentality is trod around like on a razor but declines to tip over, despite constantly threatening to do so - especially during those hospital scenes. There is no denying it is a sentimental film, but not in a groaning or manipulative way like other Hollywood films can be so guilty of. It’s a delicate boundary to dwell in, but Fincher’s steady hand coupled with its uniquely mature and darkly funny script, lifts the film above any of its peers and raises the bar for anything wanting to be in its company.

If you find yourself a bit too cynical too endure the message it provides of simply enjoying life and it’s never too late, it would not be so surprising, but you would be missing a wonderful experience. One that proves Fincher is someone who won’t be pigeon holed and without doubt, one the most interesting directors working out of Hollywood today.

An opinion on M.Night Shayamalan: Part Two - The Happening

2009-01-16T10:50:00.000+09:00

It’s almost as if people were saying this before they even saw it, but the now clichéd, “nothing much happens in The Happening” comment is not that far from the truth - but as always with Shyamalan, there is something that makes his films unique, and much like I did in the superior, but widely unpopular, The Village, I almost found it in this one too. The hype machine certainly didn’t work in this film's favour, though. Building such a film up the way they did, and then have not much really materialize is bound to bring calls of “worst film ever” from the sadist IMDB crowd after all.

In no way are the films similar, but it can be at least said that The Happening is an improvement over Night’s last film - the bizarre and pretentious Lady in the Water - and a step in the right direction getting back to what he knows whilst NOT being the nail in the coffin of his career some would have you believe. Taking it in it’s stride, the film’s fairly preposterous concept of an airborne toxin that blocks out a chemical in the brain, one that prevents us from doing self harm, is chilling enough if you choose to accept it and the script is smarter than it probably should be given the Twilight Zone atmosphere. Not allowing a concrete explanation for the events which would take away some of the fun, supernatural element, we are still surrounded by math and science teachers constantly reminding us to think logically about the whole thing. The initial terrorist panic reaction is a fairly realistic one in a post 9-11 world, but that is soon done away with as more and more people off themselves allowing the theories to flood in. Night injects some much needed, but certainly odd humour as well. Working the paranoia effectively, the whole film is reminiscent (in a positive way) of classic B-grade efforts of the 1950s.

The horror is done pretty well overall too, and certain scenes that include the various ways people kill themselves, are effective and dripping with intensity without being overly blood splattered or corny. This is the film’s strength because as it goes on, it becomes clearer that our main characters don’t really have much to do besides run from the wind. That might sound peculiar and tedious, but Night has some old school style and he paints a bright looking film that takes advantages of using more of the actor’s physical emotions with some slightly startling (at first) framing. Zooey Daschanel (playing Elliott‘s estranged wife) and Mark Wahlberg (who plays our hero science teacher, Elliott) are fine despite not really getting to develop much given all the running away they do. I won’t deny it though, there are some moments of cringe worthy deliveries, and perhaps Wahlberg just wasn’t the right guy for the role. I like him, but there’s no argument here that the guy is a wooden performer. But, and besides a few disasters bit player wise, the acting overall is not as bad as some reviews have made it out to be.

The Happening is a good example of what Night does these days - he has great ideas and even though he can make the execution look and sound good, they all end up being fairly hollow and forgettable. It’s climax is a disappointment, but I suppose the plan was to be so invested in our lead couple we should appreciate the unexpected, slightly positive ending - a tacked on ‘it‘s not over’ moment should really have been left for after the credits though. Worth seeing if you’re a fan, it’s best to just make up your own mind. It’s purely glossy B-grade fun and I don’t think the director intended it to be much more than that. Everyone should just chill out with the ‘worse film of the year’ comments - this isn’t Date Movie people.

An opinion on M.Night Shyamalan: Part One

2009-01-15T15:31:00.000+09:00

It is a shame that M.Night Shyamalan painted himself into a bit of a corner early in his career, because the guy does have some talent. But by sticking to the same formula for so long and making the audience pin his film(s) on some big reveal he’s spent the whole movie laying out has alienated a lot of people - at least it did after refusing to drop the gimmick before it became overly predictable anyway. That has made him fairly unique however, because the expectations, both good and bad, heaped upon every new film he announces (still even after all these years) are heavier than most major genre directors, and in most cases, both extremes are never met. Yes, I am happy to give examples too.

With the exception of 2006’s Lady in the Water, they’re never as unpleasant as some claim to be (I'm talking to you, The Village haters), but at the same time and despite dropping the twist gimmick, he seems to have hit a major wall in the last few years when it comes to finalizing his pictures. His latest oeuvre, The Happening, does contain a fresh take on the epidemic idea (ludicrous or not - and if you say it is stupid, then you must also dismiss a bunch of now regarded 'classics' of similar ilk), but in the end it can only be considered ordinary at best. So it seems Night is well and truly unable to re-create what he achieved in his most impressive work, Unbreakable.

The big question is though, was his breakthrough film, The Sixth Sense, that good anyway? If you believed the critics, he was the second coming of both Spielberg and Hitchcock. While it was interesting and original, it hardly has replay value. Perhaps the man, who arguably set the re-invention in motion of ‘the twist’ in mainstream cinema, gets a bit too much attention then. Shouldn’t we just drop the bar for the little guy already? It could be people ripping him to shreds or tripping over themselves in overstated praise, but the bottom line is, he is only a genre director with "Hitchcockian" ambitions, so why can’t he just make films without such scrutiny? Being egotistic is not enough to justify it, because there are HEAPS of egotistical filmmakers in Hollywood who don't cop it as much.

I consider the guy a decent storyteller, so I always walk into one of his films with only really that in my mind. I don’t think Night has really done anything to permit the size of the spotlight that’s on him is my point, but he’s no hack either. Brett Ratner is a hack. Woody Allen is an auteur. Stanley Kubrick is a master filmmaker. M.Night Shyamalan is none of the three really, but I understand it is easier to criticise than to praise. Maybe he should just focus on his strong point - the idea and conception, and then let someone with their feet closer to the ground take over. But he’s afraid to fly! He should be the most grounded filmmaker working today!

Part Two, the Captain's review of The Happening coming soon..