Four Lions (2010)

Plot summary: centres on a group of frustrated Muslim men in Sheffield who're plotting a suicide bomb attack to coincide with the London Marathon.

Chris Morris, writer and director of Four Lions, is best known for his satirical comedy shows, such as The Day Today and Brass Eye, which deftly deconstructed news broadcasting, issues-based and general British televising to hilarious affect. They dealt with a number of controversial subjects ranging from drug use all the way through to paedophilia in such a way as to demonstrate how badly they’d be misrepresented and exaggerated by the media. With Four Lions, a comedy about suicide bombers, Morris presents himself with his biggest challenge yet and I have to admit, I was unsure as to whether even he could pull the concept off in a tasteful and constructive manner. As such, I feel relieved to say that Four Lions is a side-splittingly funny, surprisingly moving and above all, extremely important film.

You may be asking yourself how anything about a group of British jihadists could be considered funny, and rightly so (provided you haven’t seen the film’s trailer of course). In making Four Lions, Morris seems to have taken a leaf out of Charlie Chaplin’s book as he channels the spirit of The Great Dictator thorough the film. He turns fear into laughter, to see these men as fools rather than people to be afraid of, and it works perfectly. There are far more failed attempts at suicide bombing, especially in Britain, than there are successes and Morris himself describes the film as portraying the, “Dad’s Army side to terrorism". In Four Lions our motley crew of would-be bombers are completely and utterly inept and although it doesn’t always feel right to do so their blundering ‘antics’ (planting bombs on crows, running through the streets whilst trying not to drop explosives) will have you laughing from start to finish.

There’s a lot more to the film that just slapstick routines and laughing at buffoons though as it’s not just about what these characters are doing – but why. Barry is a white Muslim terrorist, a funny enough concept as it is, who wants to blow his own faith’s mosques up in order to, “stir shit up”. Waj, who is a little slow to say the least, is simply copying his brother’s behaviour as he shouts hilarious lines such as, “Fuck Mini Babybels!” to join in. Meanwhile Fessal is a part of the group because otherwise he’d be, “eating newspaper instead”. These men (save for the main character, Omar) have no real clue as to what they’re fighting for and why and provide the source of much of the film’s hilarity (not to mention social commentary). These characters would be nothing, however, if it were not for the brilliant cast Morris has assembled to play them. They excel as standalone actors but also share a collective comic timing and ability to play off of one another which becomes one of the films greatest pleasures.

The films portray of various people connected to the bombers (police, politicians, bewildered co-workers and oblivious neighbours) is also one of its comedic strong points. Towards the end of the film this reaches jet-black levels of hilarity as a duo of police snipers argue over the difference between a Wookie and the Honey Monster whilst taking pot-shots at runners in the London Marathon. Thankfully Morris is also careful not to take aim at the underlying ideology or religious beliefs that drive these men (except for a rather funny swipe at their sexist attitudes) and knows exactly when to reign in the laughs to show the horrific consequences of their actions. Four Lions is a surprising film, not just because it manages to make suicide bombers funny, but because it’s also genuinely moving. Morris’s script, and the actors themselves, really sell these characters to you as three-dimensional people, instead of the usual perceived stereotypes of suicide bombers. As a result, while you’re never meant to agree with what they’re doing, you really engage with them on an emotional level.

You’ll care about what happens to these characters and some scenes may actually tug on your heart strings a little. The fact that Morris has shown little capability for human drama on this level in the past, and that he is able to balance it so well with the comedy, makes it all the more impressive. At other times Four Lions is also a downright disturbing film. The scenes of Omar’s home life in particular are some of the weirdest and disturbing moments of cinema this writer has ever witnessed. Whether it be Omar’s son getting excited at the prospect of his father’s ‘martyrdom’ or Omar altering the plot of The Lion King in order to brainwash his child, it’s truly chilling stuff. Omar’s discussions with his wife about his plans might as well be about a family holiday they’re that blasé. Many will undoubtedly misinterpret these scenes as Morris trying to make you feel sorry or side with Omar but it’s the other way around; these moments reveal him to be a thoroughly untrustworthy, manipulative and irresponsible human being.

My only real criticism of the film is that there is slightly too much broad humour present. Whilst there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with slapstick and laughing at moronic characters, I would have liked to have seen a little less of this and slightly more of the intelligent and intellectually challenging comedy Morris is known for. Similarly, a lot of Morris’s humour often came from the visual style of his television work and, save for a few moments, Four Lions is devoid of such techniques. That said, the film differs from his previous work in that focuses on human drama so perhaps a heavier visual style would have undercut this. Despite these minor grievances the film still stands as one of those rare beasts; an independent film with an important message that has mass appeal. Four Lions is brave, entertaining and essential cinema at it's best.

Final Verdict: 9/10

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

WARNING: THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS.



Plot Summary: A re-imagining of the horror icon Freddy Krueger, a serial-killer who wields a glove with four blades embedded in the fingers and kills people in their dreams, resulting in their real death in reality.

Another month, another horror remake. This time it’s Wes Craven’s turn as his 1984 slasher film, A Nightmare on Elm Street (NOES for short), gets the remake treatment by director Samuel Bayer and Michael Bay’s infamous production company, Platinum Dunes. I have to admit, I’ve never been a massive fan of the NOES franchise. The idea, that a serial killer could appear and kill you in your dreams, is a unique and frightening one but the series’ comedic tone always put me off. Bayer addresses this problem in the 2010 version of NOES, but completely fails in almost every of other aspect of horror film-making. NOES is a boring, over long mess of a film which seems to favour unnecessary gore and swearing over suspense or character development.

NOES’s biggest sin is by far lack of character development. After the initial kill sequence at the beginning of the film we’re introduced to a number of teenage characters during a in such quick succession that it’s almost as if we’re meant to have known them our entire lives. After this scene the film doesn’t properly slow down to flesh out these characters as real people with three-dimensional personalities and a consequence we don’t care whether they live or die. Instead, they’re reduced to stereotypes; the aggressive jock, preppy cheerleader, the arty loser etc. Horror films need to make a connection between the audience and the potential victims on screen because otherwise we can’t see ourselves in their shoes and in turn, feel fearful for them.

This issue is not helped in the slightest by the fact that the script and acting is terrible throughout, sometimes laughably so. The dialogue uttered by the teenagers sounds as if it were written by someone who no longer has any grasp of what it was like being a teenager and instead is content to turn to clichés and an abundance of swearing for inspiration. In one of the more hilarious pieces of dialogue Nancy explains to Quentin why she never went out with him, “I was always so unpopular and you were, you know...” The acting is similarly melodramatic and unconvincing. This is especially true in the case of Kris’s mother, Nora, who’s delivery of lines such as, “It’s ok honey, it’s over” during a funeral is so unenthused you can almost see her reaching for the cheque.

The pacing of NOES is also less than impressive as there are several plot points that go on for far too long and that don’t go anywhere of any consequence. From the beginning of the film you’re meant to believe that Kris is the main character, only for her to be killed off at about forty minutes into the film. Bayer is clearly trying to pull a Psycho on his audience here but it falls flat as Kris is so boring we don’t care what becomes of her. It’s a shameful waste of twenty minutes running time which could have been spent on some much needed character development. Later on there are a couple of scenes in which the two remaining leads decide that they made Freddy’s crimes up, and that they have inadvertently killed an innocent man. Fifteen minutes later they find the scene of Freddy’s crimes and swiftly change their minds. It’s a pointless twist in the story that does nothing but make the film unnecessarily long.

In fact, the best way to utilise this wasted time would have to actually build up a semblance of atmosphere or suspense. NOES runs at such a fast pace (in part due to the ‘micro-naps’ idea) that it doesn’t have time to set up a sense of unease or tension. This results in the film’s ‘horror’ consisting of two things. Firstly jump scares which, yes, do what they say on the tin but don’t provide any lasting impact and get old extremely quickly. Secondly, an over-use of gratuitous violent special effects. Don’t get me wrong, I love gore as much as the next twenty two year-old male, but it has to be built up to in order to be satisfying or even taken remotely seriously. In NOES you can tell this splatter hungry effects are being used as a shortcut to shock rather than horrify.

There is a glimmer of hope, however, in the portrayal of Freddy. Purists may scoff at the idea of anyone other than Robert Englund playing Krueger but the fact is that Jackie Earle Haley makes for an inspired and menacing replacement. We’ve already seen Haley play deranged lunatics before in the likes of Shutter Island and Watchmen but with Krueger he becomes a truly malevolent force to be reckoned with. His voice is just the right side of Christian Bale’s Batman growl and the way he twitches his knife fingers is truly creepy.

The best part of Haley’s Freddy is that, as previously mentioned, he’s not played for laughs. Sure, he gets plenty of one liners but (for the most part) they’re not overtly comedic as to underplay the horrific tone of the film. Nevertheless there is one fairly troubling trait the screenwriters have brought to their new version of the character, and that’s the handling of his paedophilic tendencies. I’m not against the idea that Freddy was a paedophile instead of a child killer (personally I’d always read that into the character anyway) but it’s his quips towards the end of the film that I take particular issue with. Lines such as, “How's this for a wet dream?” and, “Your mouth says no but your body say yes” boarder on the distasteful.

Some of the nightmare sequences are also well presented and fittingly surreal. The editing between worlds, snowing bedrooms and hallways full of tar all look the part and recall what made the original so brilliantly twisted. That said other scenes, such as when Freddy is coming out of wall or a classroom turning to ash, have been created with some frankly appalling CGI which looks embarrassingly bad. NOES is also a well shot film. Whilst it may not break from the stylistic rule book the film-makers have gone for a grimy, downtrodden look which complements the subject well. In the end though, neither Haley nor a handful of well executed scenes can save NOES from being exactly what it is; a truly sad excuse for a horror film.

Final Verdict: 2/10

Iron Man 2 (2010)

Plot Summary: Billionaire Tony Stark must contend with deadly issues involving the government, his own friends, as well as new enemies due to his superhero alter ego Iron Man.

Before 2008, who really knew about one of Marvel’s minor characters, ‘Iron Man’? Who even knew of the director, Jon Favreau? Very few, that’s who. Even Robert Downey Jr. hadn’t broken into the Hollywood big league yet. The release of Iron Man changed all of this, earning almost $600 million at the international box office, as well as being critically lauded and making overnight stars of everyone involved. Although when the inevitable cries for a sequel were heard, things quickly became troubled.

Favreau’s unlikely to return as director, oh no, he’s back. Terrence Howard has been fired; he’s to be replaced by Don Cheadle. Emily Blunt’s been cast, oh wait, she’s off the project. With all the issues over whom gets paid what, production schedules and casting, it’s a minor miracle that Iron Man 2 even saw the light of day at all. Thankfully, Iron Man 2 has come out at the other end of the tunnel retaining all the wit and exuberance of the original and is overall a worthy, if not spectacular, successor to Iron Man.

The film opens with, somewhat strangely, the worst scene in the entire film; the introduction of Vanko tending to his terminally ill father in Russia. This scene is filled with so much over-the-top Russian stereotyping (Vanko drinking vodka from the bottle in a snow drenched, crummy apartment building) and hammy acting (Mickey Rourke’s Darth Vader moment) that it’s embarrassingly bad. After this false start, however, the film picks up its feet and begins proper as we’re dropped headfirst into the Stark Expo along to the blisteringly energetic sounds of AC/DC.

The original Iron Man wouldn’t have been nearly as good if it were not for the characterisation of Stark as a man with an egotistical, eccentric yet brilliant mind and Robert Downey Jr. was the perfect fit to embody such a mind. The enthusiasm and maddening determination Downey brought to Tony Stark made the film and it’s no different this time around. Just as before his performance in Iron Man 2 is ridiculously enjoyable to watch, and this is not meant as a criticism, but so much so that he’s probably responsible for at least half of the films overall entertainment value. That said, the new additions to the cast are themselves particularly impressive.

Don Cheadle, replacing Terrence Howard as Lt. Col. James Rhodes, outdoes his predecessor by miles. Not just because his character is given more narrative prominence but because Cheadle is the all-round better actor; bringing a greater sense of authority and, when needed, comedic charm to the character. Mickey Rourke (save for the aforementioned emotional outburst) brings just the right amount of weird to his villainous Vanko and manages to deliver some of the best lines in the film. Meanwhile Sam Rockwell excels as the tragically comic Hammer, a man desperate to outdo Stark but without the means necessary, and Scarlett Johansson delivers a surprisingly kick-ass (not to mention easy on the eyes) turn as Tony’s new assistant, Natalie Rushman.

Favreau hasn’t lost his knack for fun, kinetic action sequences either. The director has always injected his fight scenes with a sense of humour and these moments elevate IRON MAN 2 from just being men in robot suits smacking one another. It’s the films first outburst of flames, during Stark’s eleventh hour decision to compete at Monaco, which really stands out though. Whiplash enters the course on foot, tearing up race cars left and right with a thoroughly frightening sense of determination, all shot in brilliantly realised slow-motion. It’s during this moment that we most fear for Stark and it’s a truly breathtaking piece of cinema. Scarlett Johansson also gets in on the action later on when she infiltrates Hammer’s facility. We watch as she effortlessly cuts through security guards one by one, like a hot knife through butter. It’s an impressively choreographed and memorable sequence which will surely leave audiences with their jaws resting firmly on the floor.

The special effects are also well worth a mention. The CGI in Iron Man was definitely up to the task but there were a few rough moments which unfortunately took you out of the moment. With Iron Man 2 this is not the case whatsoever. The technical and visual achievements in this sequel are some of best to date and make every scrape, blow and explosion that bit more believable. This is not to say that the film relies solely on its visuals as the script is as sharp as ever. Stark’s witty banter with his detractors continues to be a highlight of the Iron Man franchise as Stark goes toe to toe against Senator Stern and Nick Fury (Sam Jackson gets a lot more screen time round and the film is all the better for it) in two particularly hilarious scenes.

Pacing, on the other hand, is not the films strongest point. The narrative is propelled well to begin with but after Whiplash’s first attack on Stark the film becomes a little muddled, scattershot and dare I say it, boring. At the mid-point in the movie there are several plot points developing simultaneously, none of which are exceptionally interesting or well developed, and it almost feels as if you’re just waiting for the climactic battle sequence to begin. When it does arrive it’s highly enjoyable but, and just like the first film, is over far too quickly.

This leads me to my next criticism; lack of threat. There is one point, and one point only, in which the audience are under any real doubts as to whether Stark will make it out alive and that’s near the beginning. After that the film becomes very predictable as you realise that none of Iron Man’s opponents are going to put him in any tangible danger whatsoever. However, both these issues are forgiveable in the face of the larger picture, that of a fun, amusing and exciting slice of blockbuster superhero cinema.

Final Verdict 8/10

Cemetery Junction (2010)

Plot Summary: In 1970s England, the lives of three friends are forever changed when one of them bumps into his old school sweetheart.

Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant first made names for themselves with TV shows The Office and Extras, and rightly so. Both were cringe-inducing but hilarious and heartbreaking pieces of television that deserved all the attention they garnered. Putting aside Gervais’s State-side directing gig, The Invention of Lying (Merchant wasn’t creatively involved and it was a pretty poor film), Cemetery Junction sees both making the big move onto cinema screens. Cemetery Junction isn’t quite what you’d expect from the people that brought you characters like David Brent or Andy Millman, but instead sees Gervais and Merchant shifting gears somewhat and delivering a heart warming coming-of-age story set in the 70s. With Cemetery Junction both directors have crafted an astute and beautifully presented début that, despite being slightly too melodramatic and predictable, is as funny as it is moving.

Cemetery Junction creates a believable 1970s without relying too heavily on stereotypes, name-dropping or cultural iconography. Instead the film services its period details on a subtler level; snippets of overheard news reports, trends in fashion and a brilliant soundtrack all give you a sense of the times without shoving it in your face. The film is also beautifully shot; Gervais and Merchant paint a picturesque vision of the British summertime that creates an uplifting tone rarely seen in domestic films dealing with suburban life. Not content in just bringing a beautiful vision of Reading to the screen, the film-makers also leave room for some astute experimentalism with sound and image. A scene later on in the film in which a night out on the town goes horribly wrong features a nicely stylised piece of slow motion as images distort and sound deteriorates piece by piece.

Gervais and Merchant show no signs of losing their eye for character based comedy either. The inter-play between Freddie’s father and grandmother is priceless and the railway cafe owner is hilariously crude in a way only the British can truly appreciate. The laughs on offer here come thick and fast and come in a variety of forms (ranging from broad to contextual humour), but never threaten to overcome the dramatic tone of the film. The central plot of the film, Freddie’s attempt to find meaning in life and escape from his home town, is thoroughly moving and delivers an important, positive and up-lifting message. It’s when Cemetery Junction spends more time on its other characters, however, that it really carries some dramatic weight. Sub-plots focusing on Freddie’s best friend Bruce or his boss’s loveless marriage are handled with grace and are truly heartbreaking. It’s in these moments that the film transcends its funny coming-of-age genre template and becomes something far more emotionally rewarding.

All of this would of course mean nothing if it were not backed up with credible performances. Thankfully both Gervais and Merchant have assembled a brilliant cast which utilises a great combination of both new and old talent alike. Out of the three younger leads it’s Tom Hughes’s Bruce that stands out; his simmering rage and cocky stride hide a wealth of demons which are perfectly portrayed by the young actor. Elsewhere Gervais does well to cast himself in a small, comedic supporting role (not to mention Merchant’s brief but brilliant cameo) and veteran actor Ralph Fiennes does a terrific job with his self-centred and ruthless corporate boss, Mr. Kendrick. The true stand out performance here though is Emily Watson, playing Mrs. Kendrick. She has few scenes and says and does very little in them but Watson manages to provide the strongest emotional punch just by using her body language to convey a tragic world of isolation and regret.

Even though Cemetery Junction is an assured début, it’s by no means a perfect film. Gervais and Merchant do the best they can to prevent the film from being overly sentimental but a few cheesy moments still slip through. No matter how Felicity Jones delivers lines like, “Throw your heart out in front of you and run ahead to catch it” or “I think I might be in love with you too” (and Freddie’s annoying habit of repeating everything she has to say) they’re still going to sound melodramatic. Cemetery Junction is also extremely predictable as many moments in the film (including the films conclusion) will come as no surprise to anyone watching. All the loose narratives threads are tied up and everyone lives happily ever after. This, of course, comes with the territory but a couple of surprises along the way wouldn’t have hurt. Nevertheless, Cemetery Junction is a fine film from Gervais and Merchant and I wholeheartedly look forward to seeing what they come up with next.

Final Verdict: 8/10

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2010)

Plot Summary: Swedish thriller based on Stieg Larsson's novel about a journalist and a young female hacker.

As a disclaimer to this review I’d like to outwardly admit that I don’t particularly like detective/crime mystery films (for the most part). As a consequence I’m obviously going to have enjoyed The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo far less than someone who does; so feel free to add an extra mark onto my final verdict if you’re one of these people. Dragon Tattoo is a Swedish film which adapts the first in a series of bestsellers called ‘The Millennium Trilogy’. After the release in its native country last year it was box office smash and it’s now being released widely throughout Europe. The film itself is somewhat of a contemporary or ‘alternative’ take on the murder mystery genre due its depiction of sexual violence, the striking female lead and her reliance on computers and the internet. It’s a well made thriller which makes some interesting choices but overall feels like it’s missing something.

As mentioned, the main selling point of Dragon Tattoo is the two main characters who both band together (professionally and later, sexually) in order to solve a forty year-old murder case. Mikael (played by Michael Nyqvist) is a writer for a communist magazine, disgraced and heading to prison since losing a libel case against corrupt businessman. He’s not exactly Dick Van Dyke. It’s really Lisbeth (Noomi Rapace), though, who stands out here for several reasons. First of all, her goth/alternative look is extremely striking; piercings, tattoos and of course, primarily black clothing dominate. Her feminist attitude and resolve is demonstrated in a variety of different scenes throughout the film, combined with her troubled past and general mystique, make her a thoroughly compelling character. Both roles are very well written and acted and as a result it wouldn’t be unfair to suggest that they make the film.

Dragon Tattoo is also well, if not particularly interestingly, shot from start to finish and does a good job of creating a dramatic and mysterious set-up for the murder case. The film is also rather uncompromising in its depiction and critique of the general male population. Not all men are portrayed as evil or perverted and it’s not quite a true ‘feminist film’ but as the original Swedish title, Men Who Hate Women, suggests the film-makers clearly have things to say about the male dominated society we all live in. This appears in the film in truly harsh and gritty scenes in which Lisbeth is assaulted in full view of the public by a group of drunk men at a train station, sexual assaulted by her probation officer and finally in the murderous exploits of the Vanger clan. Not that Lisbeth takes it lying down, she fights back at her male oppressors with full force; in one particularly hard to watch scene she even drugs, ties up and rapes a man with a dildo.

The violent direction taken by the film-makers is an interesting, if not exactly enjoyable, decision which adds some much needed dramatic weight and realism to events. Even with these unique elements present in the film, Dragon Tattoo still ends up feeling fairly formulaic. The identity of the killer and the whereabouts of the victim will be obvious to most keen-eyed viewers and nothing in particular really stands out and grabs the audience. Dragon Tattoo also has a rather long running time which some may find trying. The first hour of the film takes far too long establishing the characters and plot and there appears to be about four endings. The main ending itself also felt uncharacteristically upbeat and felt off with the rest of the film. However, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a well made film and is a fairly different take on the murder mystery film which fans of the genre are bound to enjoy.

Final Verdict: 7/10

Shutter Island (2010)

Plot Summary: Drama is set in 1954, U.S. Marshal Teddy Daniels is investigating the disappearance of a murderess that escaped from a hospital for the criminally insane and is presumed to be hiding on the remote Shutter Island.

A new film release from legendary film director Martin Scorsese (director of such classics as Raging Bull, Taxi Driver and Goodfellas) is always going to be a big deal and Shutter Island is no exception. His follow up to 2006’s The Departed has been a long time coming, not least because it was delayed for four months, but it’s now gracing screens across the country. Based upon Dennis Lehane’s novel of the same name Shutter Island is an interesting mystery come thriller which borrows heavily from the likes of Val Lewton and Alfred Hitchcock throughout. It feels almost needless to say, this is Scorsese we’re dealing with here, but the film really is expertly put together. Considering this and the potential of the set-up of the story, Shutter Island could have been one of the director’s best but it is unfortunately held back by its misguided pacing and a somewhat weak conclusion.

As mentioned, and from the very first shot of a ferryboat emerging from ominous misty seas, the film-making pedigree on display here is as spellbinding as you’d expect. Scorsese and his crew really push themselves and the result is a joy to witness. Shutter Island is beautifully photographed and the imagery captured in decaying ruins, gothic architecture and surreal dream sequences could easily stand alone outside of the film. The sound design and editing also deserve a mention here as both are used in unconventional and surprising ways to further bring the audience into Teddy’s emotionally complex mindset. Jump cuts, would-be continuity errors, mismatched lip synch and layers of sound all work together to express the fractured state of our central character’s mind.

The acting, ranging from relative newcomers to experienced veterans of the screen, is thoroughly convincing and is typical of the calibre of film-making on display. Scorsese does a brilliant job of setting up the secretive and questionable nature of the titular Shutter Island; creating a truly living environment and a very involving and mysterious tone. The story that unravels on the island is a compelling throwback detective thriller and will keep you guessing as to what is going on in the institution and indeed, Teddy’s mind. Shutter Island isn’t a horror film (the closest it comes is during the scenes in the illusive ‘Ward C’) but certainly draws upon the genre and produces a strangely compelling eerie atmosphere. This is aided by the selection of modern classical pieces supervised by Robbie Robertson which really convey the haunted feel of the film.

Not all, however, is well on Shutter Island. The film makes many twists and turns and many possible outcomes are hinted at but the final reveal is a very disappointing one. You know when you guess an ending early on and think, “No, it can’t be that easy to figure out”. Well guess what? With Shutter Island, it really is. This is a shame as the film is better than that and could have done something much more interesting with the story. This is, on the other hand, saved slightly by a very powerful final line which poses many more questions than it answers. There is also a slight pacing issue present as the third act struggles to keep up the momentum it has so carefully built up and it becomes a bit dull until the aforementioned reveal. Shutter Island is very well made film from a man who clearly knows what he’s doing and is certainly an enjoyable experience overall, but it could have done with a much more intellectually rewarding ending and a shorter running time.

Final Verdict: 7/10

The Crazies (2010)

Plot Summary: About the inhabitants of a small Iowa town suddenly plagued by insanity and then death after a mysterious toxin contaminates their water supply.

The horror genre has been plagued by a trend in remakes for the last ten years, some of which have been good, many of which have been terrible. This time it’s zombie film-making legend George A. Romero’s turn as his 1973 film, also entitled The Crazies, has been given the remake treatment. The common consensus is that remakes usually work best when the original film had a good concept but was let down by its delivery. If this is true then The Crazies is a perfect candidate for a remake as Romero’s film had an original and politically edgy set-up but was given a minuscule budget and was, quite frankly, rather poorly directed. Thankfully Breck Eisner’s update was given a much higher budget and ends up being better than its predecessor in almost every way, providing a solid, if not outstanding, horror experience.

The film begins, rather bravely, on an image of the town in ruin. This bleak opener lets the audience know what they’re in for as the film slowly builds up the tension until all hell breaks loose. This is one thing that The Crazies does very well in much of its later scenes (especially in comparison with the original); building up tension and then providing an unflinching and gory finish. Eisner knows just how long to hold back the action, creating a creepy and tense atmosphere, and when he lets rip the resulting carnage is never less than satisfying. The cinematography, along with a suitably eerie score, compliments these scenes well, tingeing the images with a dark and gritty spectrum of greens. The Crazies also does a good job of making its audience respect its two core characters, a job too often neglected by similar genre offerings.

Married couple David and Judy are not idiots, they’re trained professionals (a police officer and doctor, respectfully) who won’t have you shouting at the screen in disbelief. It helps then, that both Timothy Olyphant and Radha Mitchell also deliver solid performances which do their roles justice throughout. The main appeal of The Crazies is of course, the core concept. There is a virus loose in your hometown and it’s turning everyone you know into the murderous ‘crazies’ of the title. Not only this, but the government, aided by the military, must contain the virus by any means necessary before it goes global. The scenes of containment, its failure and the attempted clean-up involving the military are indeed genuinely shocking as families are separated without explanation, shot down in cold blood and eventually victims of mass burnings in an attempt to contain the biological hazard (provoking comparisons in one’s mind to many a historical incident).

This is, however, also where the film falls short. Since the release of Romero’s original in 1973 countless horror films have depicted ruthless states of martial law (28 Weeks Later standing as one of the better recent examples) which leaves The Crazies with little new to say. Additionally, even though this is the superior version, the original dealt with this subject matter with much more depth. Other, unrelated, problems also pervade the film. For all its tension building The Crazies is often host to many obvious jump scares, and also a number of false scares that at times it verges on the ridiculous. These techniques are overused in the genre and are rather tired. There are a number of glaring plot holes throughout the film (how did David get back to the police station? Do you die that quickly from being hung?) and the ending is also particularly underwhelming. Nevertheless, The Crazies is a surprisingly good remake and one of the more enjoyable horror films to grace the screen in recent months.

Final Verdict: 6/10

Micmacs (2010)

Plot Summary: A man and his friends come up with an intricate and original plan to destroy two big weapons manufacturers.

Director Jean-Pierre Jeunet makes films of the Marmite variety; you’ll either love them or hate them (and I’ll admit outright - I fall into the former category). His quirky French tales continue to divide audiences due to his preoccupation with oddball characters, distinctive sense of humour and unconventional cinematic style. However, as opposed to someone such as Tim Burton, Jeunet has not yet become a caricature of himself due to his somewhat meagre output over the last eighteen years. Micmacs, his first film in five, is being billed as somewhat of a comeback and has been described as a synthesis of his first film, Delicatessen, and his breakout hit; Amélie. Herein lies the problem with the film; while it’s certainly solid filmmaking and highly enjoyable, Micmacs feels a little like Jeunet’s very own Sleepy Hollow.

Micmacs feels as if it’s missing something, that original spark which made his earlier films such a joy to watch. The previously mentioned comparison is very telling for the film is neither as darkly twisted as Delicatessen, nor nearly as touching as Amélie. Micmacs once again tackles the old theme of outsiders fighting for justice, scenes detailing the minute details of individuals’ habits; even the end credit sequence is lifted straight from Delicatessen. There is, however, much to love about the film. Micmacs is beautifully shot in Jeunet’s signature gold hue throughout which really brings the screen to life and aptly conveys the fantastical world of the narrative. The weird and wonderful characters all have their own, distinctive qualities and are all likeable to the extent that you wish you knew them in real life. Their schemes and inventions are all highly creative, making a lot of the scenes feel like watching something in between a circus show and an art exhibition. All the while a playful, typically French sounding orchestral soundtrack perfectly complements these eccentric characters and their exploits.

The actors themselves do a wonderful job, with Danny Boon (playing the main character, Bazil) giving the standout performance. Boon is apparently a major comedic actor in France but has not since found fame outside of the country which is a shame. His mannerisms, miming and general screen presence provides a lot of the film's laughs and as such Boon becomes of the best things about the film. Micmacs is also very clever in its delivery and comedic tone; more than several scenes had me laughing out loud. The story of corrupt weapons dealers, however unconventionally portrayed, is an important one which has many parallels to contemporary French (and worldwide, for that matter) politics even if it is rather predictable in its conclusion. All in all Micmacs is a very amusing and heart warming film but, in drawing a little too much from his previous work, Jeunet falls just short of brilliance.

Final Verdict: 7/10.

The Lovely Bones (2010)

WARNING: THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS.



Plot Summary: The film centres on a young girl who has been murdered and watches over her family - and her killer - from heaven. She must weigh her desire for vengeance against her desire for her family to heal.

At this stage in the game, with eleven days until the Oscar winners are announced, it’s hard to believe that The Lovely Bones was ever mooted as a heavyweight contender for the awards season. Alice Sebold’s novel was always going to be a tough piece to adapt but many believed, based on his work on the Lord of the Rings trilogy, that Peter Jackson was up to it. However, since its release State-side the film has been savagely ripped to pieces by film critics and the general public alike and barely features among the final list of Oscar nominees. While The Lovely Bones does indulge Jackson’s weaknesses as a storyteller it is not the spectacular cinematic failure many will have you believe.

The film is set in the set in the early 70’s and the period details give a good sense of the times. Technology, clothes, hair and even colour scheme all combine to create a believable 1970’s for the events to unfold in. Jackson does not jump straight into the action either; an adequate amount of film is spent at the beginning of the film establishing Susie Salmon as a real person with whom the audience can identify with. These achievements would mean nothing, of course, if the acting were not up to scratch but thankfully each cast member brings to the table a credible performance. Relative unknown Saoirse Ronan does a good job (if at times a little overplayed) with a difficult role at such an early age and Susan Sarandon is a joy to watch, bringing some much-needed comedic relief to proceedings. Even Mark Wahlberg (who too often fails to convince) is decent as the obsessed father, unable to let go and grieve his loss.

It is, however, Stanley Tucci, as the calm and collected yet highly dangerous paedophile George Harvey, who ultimately steals the show. The afterlife sections, while sometimes slightly too obvious in their symbolism, are brilliantly rendered and really make the film look unique. When Susie is indulging her fantasies the images are shot in a spectrum of beautifully bright colours and are full of wonder. Two of the films best scenes, though, occur when Susie’s purgatory turns darker; a shocking revelation in a bloodied bathroom and later, a Gondryesque walk through the crime scenes of Harvey’s previous victims display touches of brilliance. At times, The Lovely Bones is also highly suspenseful. The scene in which Susie is captured by Harvey and when Susie’s sister sneaks into his home are both hair raisingly tense, and show a masterful command of the screen by Jackson (the former would most definitely not be improved, as many have suggested, by a more explicit depiction of her demise).

Nonetheless, The Lovely Bones does have its fair share of flaws. Probably the most apparent problem is that there is simply too much going on in the film that it never really does any of the plot strands justice. The movie is a cocktail of suspense thriller, fantasy, police procedural, family drama and serial killer film and while each of the different ingredients are dealt with well, they’re poorly edited together and never fleshed out enough. This problem goes hand in hand with Jackson’s previously mentioned directorial weakness; lack of control in terms of sentimentality and running time. These two issues threatened to ruin both Lord of the Rings: Return of the King and King Kong but with The Lovely Bones he has finally gone overboard and the film suffers for it. The ending to the film is highly drawn out, with an excruciatingly cheesy moment in which Susie is allowed back to Earth so she can finally receive her first kiss and a completely unnecessary epilogue in which Harvey meets his fate in the form of a falling icicle.

Other, unrelated failings are also present in The Lovely Bones. The film spends a good amount of time setting up the Salmon family unit that once Susie is dead its depiction of their grief is sorely lacking in comparison. Sure, the audience are giving a few fleeting moments in which we see family members crying and holding each other but we never really get a full sense of the emotional trauma that the loss of a family member can inflict. This is not helped by the sudden introduction of Grandma Lynn which, while still entertaining in itself, infringes on our emotional response to Susie’s death and seems totally off with the tone of the film up to that point. Despite these problems The Lovely Bones is still a solid and enjoyable experience; it’s just a shame Jackson couldn’t have reigned it in a little as the film we’re left with is somewhat of a missed opportunity rather than the Oscar worthy achievement it had the potential to be.

Final Verdict: 6/10.

Tony (2010)

WARNING: THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS.



Plot Summary: A thriller centred on a serial killer in a rundown London suburb.

A great film can be many things but, for me at least, the best films display either; a masterful level of artistry on a grand scale (Goodfellas, Seven Samurai) or an ability to get under my skin and truly move me (Control, The Haunting). Tony falls squarely into the latter category and has to be the best film I’ve seen so far this year. Unfortunately, it’s unlikely that most people have even heard of the film at all. It’s a low-budget British film that had a very limited release earlier in the month and, in what is becoming somewhat of a trend amongst similar films, went onto be released on DVD a mere three days later. This is a crying shame because Tony is a highly affecting film on the subject, the likes of which have not been seen since indie classics such as Deranged or Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer.

Tony perfectly subverts the standard serial killer clichés in a number of ways. The audience are given no ‘normal man goes crazy’ first act, there are no police hot on Tony’s tracks and in a final stroke of brilliance he is not arrested or killed, but merely seen wandering the streets of London in solitude as the credits roll over the screen. The film is closer in tone to a kitchen-sink drama than Silence of the Lambs; a lot of the time we simply follow Tony walking around a drab looking Hackney or sitting around in his squalid flat in a council estate. The murders, and subsequent attempts to conceal the evidence, are shot in a documentary style while Tony goes through the motions in a calm and methodical manner. You’ll find no over-stylisation here; instead of glamorising these acts the film-makers have taken a more sobering, realistic approach which gives the film a highly disturbing feel. The film never becomes tedious however, as the tension is always taut and several red-herrings keep you guessing.

The central performance by relative newcomer Peter Ferdinando is outstanding and it would come as no surprise to me if we begin to see more of him in future productions. Ferdinando brings to Tony a fragile, lonely side which by no means makes the audience feel sorry for him but adds depth to a character that could easily have been one-dimensional and derivative. As the film progresses one begins to get a sense of his mental state, without it edging into pop-psychology territory. Tony wanders the streets of London talking openly to strangers, hanging out with drug addicts and going to a prostitute for company. Tony doesn’t kill because his Daddy sexually abused him; he’s a social outcast in a highly hostile and alienating environment who doesn’t know how to deal with it. Similarities to real-life murderer Dennis Nilsen are apparent but never overplayed and bring to the film a further sense of horrifying realism. Tony is most definitely not a sunny character-study but black humour runs throughout the film and keeps it from taking itself too seriously.

The camerawork and cinematography are particularly affecting and add much to the almost sickening atmosphere prevalent throughout the film. As mentioned, the film mostly employs modern documentary camerawork, but moments such as a long take of Tony’s ‘waste’ sinking to the bottom of a pitch-black canal or Tony’s figure shrouded in darkness waiting for the lift doors to close really enhance the feeling of his warped world. One extremely clever piece of camerawork starts as what simply appears to be a shot from behind a partially closed door, but quickly it becomes apparent, when a hand reaches out, that it’s actually a trapped victim’s point-of-view. Additionally, the soundtrack provided by British band ‘The The’ is aptly sinister, dark and moving.

Complaints could be levelled at Tony’s reliance on cultural stereotyping within the working classes but these characters (aggressive chavs, heartless dole officers and strung-out druggies) are extremely convincing and add to the general feel of moral depravity underlining the film. Others would protest that the film adds very little to the genre, especially since it bares many similarities to the previously mentioned Henry, but those films are now dreadfully dated and few are set in inner-city London or told in such a direct manner. My only grievance is that the film is too short; coming in at just under an hour and twenty minutes long. I could have happily watched a three hour version of Tony and did, admittedly, feel a little short-changed. Nevertheless, and while clearly not for everyone, Tony is a highly gripping and uncompromisingly bleak film and one that will stay with you for days, if not weeks, after it has finished.

Final Verdict: 9/10

Ponyo on the Cliff (2010)

Plot Summary: An animated adventure centred on a 5-year-old boy and his relationship with a goldfish princess who longs to become human.

Since the terrible miss-fire that was Tales from Earthsea (directed by Hayao Miyazaki’s son, Goro) Studio Ghibli has had a lot to answer for. Thankfully Ponyo, which was released way back in 2008 in Japan, is a strong return to form and is a timely reminder of the magical animation the studio is capable of. Many critics would have you believe that this is a merely ‘kid’s film’, but that is to miss the point entirely. Hayao Miyazaki has oft been quoted as stating that his films are not exclusively for children, but also for the child inside of adults. Taken on these terms Ponyo reveals itself to audiences, child and adult alike, as a beautiful display of the human capability for creativity and imagination.

Story-wise, Ponyo is essentially The Little Mermaid by way of Miyazaki. Unlike the Disney version however, and as standard for the director, there is little threat from an antagonist and the film moves at a much slower, relaxed pace. This slow pace allows the audience to really connect with the two main characters. For example one prolonged scene (which also happens to be one of the films finest) simply depicts a meal on a rainy evening but helps to create real, rounded representations of children and their interaction with each other. The film is highly entertaining from start to finish due to its lovable characters, uniquely enjoyable moments and striking visuals. In terms of themes, the familiar Miyazaki trademarks centred on the environment and the nature of family unites are present and correct but never threaten to overthrow the concise but thoroughly touching narrative.

What really makes Ponyo stand out is its breathtaking animation. In designing the look of the film Miyazaki seemingly took inspiration from another Studio Ghibli film, My Neighbors the Yamadas, in terms of its pastel colours and sketch-like character design. This results in a visual style which fits the aquatic theme and the more playful and relaxed tone of the film. Technically, the animation is outstanding. Two scenes spring to mind which actually shocked me in terms of their attention to detail (an early underwater scene in which literally hundreds of individually animated species of fish roam the ocean) and sense of movement and fluidity (a later scene in which Ponyo runs in and out of a raging sea storm of giant fish).

The images on display here really help to capture a true sense of childlike wonder and innocence rarely seen in contemporary animation. If I have any gripe about Ponyo, it would be that although I enjoyed the tone of the film, it still feels a little too lightweight. Even My Neighbor Totoro, which most closely resembles Ponyo in terms of its childlike outlook and atmosphere, dealt with a difficult subject underneath the surface (a father that works away from home hardly compares to dealing with the loss of your mother). Additionally, even though Ghibli films are notorious for having unconventional narrative structures, the ending to Ponyo felt a little melodramatic and awkward in comparison to the rest of the film. Nevertheless, Ponyo is a great addition to the Ghibli cannon and is highly recommended to anyone who is willing to tap into their childhood imagination and relish a time before taxes and housework.

Final Verdict: 8/10

Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (2010)

Plot Summary: In Harlem, an overweight, illiterate teen who is pregnant with her second child is invited to enrol in an alternative school in hopes that her life can head in a new direction.

I’ll be honest; I usually find it very hard to invest in films such as Precious. Films that try so very obviously to throw as many shocking and horrible scenarios at the audience turn me off and I find their attempt so see-through and laboured that I cannot connect with the characters on any level. However, due to the level of praise Lee Daniels’s new film has garnered I found it hard to ignore and I’m glad I gave it a chance. Precious, despite some glaring technical missteps is in fact a thoroughly moving and engaging film about an important topic not often given appropriate attention.

The Precious of the title, played by Gabourey Sidibe, is the heart and soul of the movie. She carries the film, and it is on her merits that the film depends. Thankfully, Sidibe plunges face-first into the (emotionally dense and highly self-deprecating) role, not merely acting as Precious, but becoming her. In fact, Sidibe’s performance is so believable that it’s hard to believe this was, at the time, her first acting gig. Precious, despite her background, is not the most likeable of characters but Sidibe brings a tenderness and optimism to the role which (along with a surprisingly bearable narration) helps keep audiences on her side. The acting on display in Precious is sublime from start to finish with inspired casting of supporting characters from Mo'Nique, Paula Patton, Mariah Carey and yes, even Lenny Kravitz.

Indeed, without such an astonishingly strong cast of actors the film wouldn’t carry half the emotional punch it delivers. The film’s plot delves into some very dark places and deals with issues revolving around broken families (unconventional doesn’t even begin to cover it), the state benefit system and African-American working class life in an insightful and affecting manner without ever becoming too preachy. While the film deals with issues that many would rather ignore it never feels like a lecture and acts as a powerful reminder of how wrong things can when people are pushed to the edges of society. Consequently, and particularly towards the end of the film, things get extremely heavy, providing some of the most emotionally difficult and moving cinema I have experienced for a long while.

Nevertheless, there are numerous technical misgivings which undercut much of the drama on display and, to an extent, ruin what could have been one of the year’s finest films. Formally, the film plays with a lot of different styles which sometimes pay off, but mostly fall flat. For instance, the use of Precious’s fantasy scenes were an understandable decision but were often cut into the action rather abruptly. The editing of these scenes felt awkward and misplaced, continually taking us out of the moment at all the wrong times. Some of these stylistic choices, such as when Precious looks into the mirror and sees a skinny white girl, are artfully implemented but most seem overwhelming and tacked-on.

Additionally, a cheap use of slow motion occurs whenever Precious is physically abused by others, removing the impact of the violence and ultimately coming off as cheesy when the film should be at its most traumatic. The placing and choice of music is also often bizarre and off-putting. It rarely seems to adequately match the atmosphere of the scene it accompanies. Regardless, Precious still manages comes off as a highly engaging experience, and one which I would highly recommend to anyone who is even remotely interested in the social issues it raises.

Final Verdict: 7/10

The Road (2010)

Plot Summary: A post-apocalyptic tale of a man and his son trying to survive by any means possible.

The new Cormac McCarthy adaptation, after No Country For Old Men (great) and All The Pretty Horses (not so great), has had a bumpy road to cinema screens. The Road was originally meant to be released towards the end of 2008 but, as is becoming all too common for The Weinstein Company, it didn’t see the light of day until November 2009. During this period of time the usual delayed-film-fears began to settle in as seen with many similar releases before it. Thankfully, as the final film illustrates, these fears were proven to be entirely weightless. The Road, although not for everyone, is an extremely realistic and dark portrayal of a bleak post-apocalyptic world and the lengths a man will go to in order to protect his son.

The post-apocalyptic world that ‘Father’ and ‘Boy’ (neither are named throughout, a perfect illustration of their disenchanted existence and depiction of a society in which names are no longer needed) inhabit is beautifully captured visually throughout the film. The CGI assisted sets look more than convincing, as breathtakingly dilapidated and desolate urban images dominate The Road. The cinematography follows suit, drenching the screen in an oppressive grey spectrum of hopelessness. Likewise the make-up and costume department do a fantastic job of making the characters look like they’re living everyday as their last with a near-unrecognisable appearance by Robert Duvall and Viggo Mortensen literally looking as if he’s about to starve to death throughout. All these elements, along with Nick Cave and Warren Ellis’s suitable dark and eerie soundtrack, create a grimly realistic atmosphere which may turn some viewers off, but will press all the right buttons for others.

Accordingly the film moves at a slow pace, any ‘action’ scenes are far and few between and often scenes depict nothing more than father and son looking for food or shelter and walking down motorways in silence. This is not to say that the film is devoid of any narrative substance as several suspenseful and harsh scenes (such as the horrifying discovery of malnourished people being stored in a basement by a group of cannibals) most certainly make their mark. Contrasting these scenes are flashbacks to the time before things changed (the film doesn’t explain what caused the apocalypse, leaving the audience to decide) which add real emotional depth to the proceedings and shed light on our main characters plight.

Furthermore, not a single actor turns in a bad performance. Mortensen brilliantly portrays a broken, obsessively protective father who is not always likeable but whose actions are thoroughly understandable. Charlize Theron is pitch-perfect as the mother who has lost all hope and even Kodi Smit-McPhee is believable (if not a little trying at times) as their fragile son. If The Road has one drawback, it is that the film may be too restrained for its own good. For all its atmospheric achievements perhaps the film could have benefited from a stronger narrative thread or threat as I felt slightly unsatisfied with the amount of drama present. Regardless, The Road is highly recommended to anyone who appreciates a slower film and can stomach an examination into the darker side of humanity and its potential for cruelty.

Final Verdict: 8/10

Sherlock Holmes (2009)

Plot Summary: Detective Sherlock Holmes and his stalwart partner Watson engage in a battle of wits and brawn with a nemesis whose plot is a threat to all of England.

It’s been a long while since Sherlock Holmes has graced our screens and the nature of his return (or ‘reboot’ to use the popular term) seemed at first determined to shake as many apple carts as possible. Casting an American as the long-beloved English lead? Choosing Guy Richie, famous for depicting hyper-fast gangster violence and foul-mouthery, as director? Turning Holmes into a ‘kick-ass, ask questions later’ action hero? These risks, however, pay off in spades as the new Sherlock Holmes film manages to find the perfect balance between the traditional mystery investigations and Victorian London locales of old while injecting a new sense of humour and action into the mix.

The key to Sherlock Holmes's success lies in the depiction of, and chemistry between, Robert Downey Jr. as Sherlock Holmes and Jude Law as John Watson. Both actors do their roles more than justice, with Downey Jr. in particular bringing to the role a slacker playfulness, not seen before in previous Holmes incarnations, while still managing to convince the audience of his brilliance as a detective (and of his English accent). The banter between the two actors is witty and thoroughly enjoyable; it’s enough to make you believe the two have known each other as long as their fictional counter-parts. Meanwhile Guy Richie manages to rein in his usual kinetic style of film-making just enough as to not disrupt the tone of the film and still keep it visually interesting enough.

The action is exciting and shot well without going too overboard, while the slow-motion breakdowns of Holmes’s fight moves are especially impressive. Additional, as with Lock, Stock and RockNRolla before it, Sherlock Holmes continues Richie’s love-affair with his hometown by depicting a truly alive Victorian London via an authentic combination of period sets and striking CGI backgrounds. The only elements that let the film down are drawn-out pacing and a less-than threatening villain. The film has so much to set up and takes so long doing so that towards the end the pace starts to lag and you may find yourself wondering which scene will be the last, especially as the ending is more than predictable. Mark Strong, meanwhile, does a competent job as the evil Lord Blackwood but isn’t particularly memorable and never poses much of a threat to Holmes. Ultimately, however, Sherlock Holmes feels like a breath of fresh air for a somewhat dated franchise and provides a highly entertaining cinema-going experience.

Final Verdict: 7/10

Avatar (2009)

WARNING: THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS.



Plot Summary: When his brother is killed in battle, paraplegic Marine Jake Sully decides to take his place in a mission on the distant world of Pandora. There he learns of greedy corporate figurehead Parker Selfridge's intentions of driving off the native humanoid ‘Na'vi’ in order to mine for the precious material scattered throughout their rich woodland.

After making the biggest grossing film of all time, Titanic, and crowning himself “King of the World” James Cameron took a break from film-making for over ten years. He spent the time dabbling in the odd documentary and developing the camera technology necessary for his mysterious next project, Avatar. Audiences waited with baited breath to witness what Cameron would unleash while information about the film slowly but surely trickled out and hype began to snowball to epic proportions. Since its release Avatar has become the second highest grossing film ever and the visual experience it provides is being lauded as the best of its kind since cinema began. The effects and scope of the film certainly deliver, but a truly great film cannot rely on visuals alone.

Unfortunately, where Avatar falls short is in the story and script department. Make no mistake, the comparison to films such as Pocahontas, Dances with Wolves and FurnGully is not merely childish fanboyism, but in fact an accurate description of the unoriginality and tone on display throughout the film. Avatar is highly predictable, even to those who have no seen the aforementioned films. Jake of course sides with the Na’vi and helps them drive away the ruthless colonizers, and he and Neytiri are destined to fall in love. The plot is also ridden with clichés. We’ve got a man torn between his duty and his heart, a character that initially finds a person annoying and then falls for them against their better judgment, wise old sages, greedy corporations, liberals fighting for diplomacy and a ruthless, unstoppable army sergeant. You name ‘em, they’re in this film.

The dialogue is also poorly conceived with the script often coming across as false and, at times, even laughter-inducing. That said the actors do a good job with what they’re given and it’s not hard to see why Sam Worthington is Hollywood’s new go-to action hero. However, the main problem with the films story is just how melodramatic and cheesy it gets in parts. The manner in which the Na’vi and their culture is handled gets to Matrix Reloaded rave-scene levels of ridiculous at points, while in others it’s just plain over-the-top in its depiction of good vs. evil. The environmental message of the film, while topical and important, wasn’t handled with any grace whatsoever and as such ultimately felt rather juvenile in its delivery.

Whatever is said about Avatar’s narrative failures, its astounding visuals cannot be faulted. The motion capture technology and subsequent CGI effects in the film are indeed the best I have ever seen. During several moments in the film the Na’vi actually looked so real I had trouble pulling my jaw up from the floor. The smoke, light, flame and shadow effects also blend in amazingly well with the characters that I’ll be highly surprised if the film doesn’t pick up the Oscar for Best Visual Effects. The world of Pandora is also beautifully rendered and realized. It entrances the viewer with exotic images of floating mountains, giant, alien vegetation and creatures. The only thing that breaks the spell of Pandora is the somewhat uninspired art design of the non-Na’vi creatures (alien horse, alien rhino, alien monkey, alien dog etc.). Cameron also does well when handling the cinematography of the human spaces, framing the action from a dark, gritty and realistic looking world-view.

The action scenes littered throughout the film are highly satisfying, all frantic and fast paced without glossing over any of the nasty realities of warfare (at times even revelling in them). The final twenty minute battle scene is justifiably epic with air-craft and flying creatures alike littering the screen while the final showdown between Jake and Parker is what audience members have been waiting for since the latter’s introduction. The film also deals with a number of interesting themes and issues, such as with mankind’s misuse of technology (a Cameron trademark). However, many of these ideas feel underdeveloped. Jake’s use of the avatar body, for example, has him confusing the days and musing on which body now feels more real to him. Had this and similar ideas been further explored Avatar would have been a far more rewards experience. As it is, and rather ironically, Cameron has failed to heed his own warning and depended on technology far too much, neglecting the basics of an interesting and believable story.

Final Verdict: 6/10

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

WARNING: THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS.



Plot Summary: In Nazi-occupied France during World War II, a group of Jewish-American soldiers known as ‘The Basterds’ are chosen specifically to spread fear throughout the Third Reich by scalping and brutally killing Nazis. The Basterds soon cross paths with a French-Jewish teenage girl who runs a movie theatre in Paris which is targeted by the soldiers.

The story goes that Quentin Tarantino has been working on the script for his new film, Inglourious Basterds, for over ten years. He was originally meant to shoot it in 2004 but Kill Bill got in the way, Michael Madsen was meant to star at one point and he even toyed with the idea of making a TV series out of the material. As such, anticipation for the film rose and rose until earlier this year the film was finally released to an eager fan-base. The question is, was it all worth the wait? As unsatisfying as it sounds, the resounding answer is merely sort-of. With his sixth film as director Tarantino has managed to make two wildly different, but both extremely captivating films. However, by condensing them both into one feature his synthesis yields a regretfully average film.

The film is essentially split into two storylines; one about a group of American soldiers dropped behind enemy lines and another about a cinema owner who plans to kill most of the Nazi elite at a movie premier. The former is a gloriously over-the-top Jewish revenge fantasy that recalls the directors previously forays into exploitation cinema such as Grindhouse, Jackie Brown and Kill Bill while the latter is a suspenseful, dialogue intense and thoughtful exploration into the power of cinema. The acting throughout both plotlines is almost faultless with almost every character giving a performance typical of Tarantino’s gift for characterisation. Christoph Waltz as Hans Landa is the obvious standout as the equally charming and terrifying ‘Jew Hunter’ and it comes as no surprise that he won the best actor award at this year’s Cannes Film Festival. Waltz takes over every scene he appears in and makes for some of the films funniest yet tense moments. Brad Pitt also makes a very entertaining Southern hick and even Eli Roth is convincing as the hugely overdramatic ‘Bear Jew’.

The Basterds section of the film is fun from start to finish, dripping with Tarantino cool, excessive violence and unforgettable characters. The finest scene has to be the basement bar rendezvous with Bridget von Hammersmark and the ensuing shoot-out and eventual Mexican stand-off. This part of the Basterds’s journey really is Tarantino at his finest; lengthy but captivating dialogue, extremely tense atmosphere and of course, more-than satisfying bloodshed. The scene is so well paced and choreographed that it more than stands up to the briefcase scene in Pulp Fiction and the final scene from Reservoir Dogs. However, it is really Shosanna’s half of the film that triumphs as it contains far more substance and intrigue for the audience to chew on long after the credits have rolled.

Mélanie Laurent’s character is a vulnerable yet fierce personality that is far more relatable and sympathetic than all of the Basterds put together. Her final plan to destroy the Nazi elite, combined with inclusion of the fictional Nazi propaganda film ‘Nation’s Pride’, is a brilliant literal and metaphorical portrayal of the power of cinema to influence popular opinion, settle personal vendettas and ultimately; to change history itself (be it an alternative end to World War II or simply Tarantino’s hard and fast approach to historical accuracy). The first scene, in which Shosanna’s entire family are slain at the hands of Landa, is one of the most suspenseful I’ve seen in a long time while the montage of Shosanna getting ready for the film premier set to David Bowie’s ‘Cat People (Putting Out Fire)’ is simply superb.

Regardless of the narrative oversight previously mentioned Inglourious Basterds is also host to a number of other drawbacks. Violence is a Tarantino trademark, granted, but it was always most effective when suggested, rather than explicitly shown to the audience. With his latest film this technique seems to have been thrown out of the window in favour of an in-your-face approach which adds very little to the film. Another element Tarantino is praised for is his soundtracking ability, which, while not entirely absent from the film, most definitely lacks in comparison to his earlier work. The soundtrack is compiled mostly of original pieces of music taken from old Westerns and war films of the 60s and 70s which work sometimes but are often jarring and deinterpolating. Drawing again from the exploitation films of old the director also uses on-screen titles to introduce certain characters (Hugo Stiglitz and most of the Nazi elite later in the film) which worked well in his previous films but seemed out-of-place in the wider context of the film. These problems, combined with the decision to combine two stories which could both have easily been their own films, make for an enjoyable yet frustrating outing.

Final verdict: 7/10

Watchmen (2009)

WARNING: THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS.



Plot Summary: In an alternate 1985 where former superheroes exist, the murder of a colleague sends active vigilante Rorschach into his own sprawling investigation, uncovering something that could completely change the course of history as we know it.

The great ‘un-filmable’ graphic novel has now finally been released in 2009, twenty three years after it was initially optioned to film studios. Writers, stars and directors have come and gone in that time and the film has ultimately been handed over to new kid on the block; Zack Snyder. Wait, what? Zack Snyder, the guy that directed the half-decent remake of Dawn of the Dead and the visually arresting but utterly shallow 300? Sure, he’s the man to adapt a four hundred plus page, multi-themed, adult comic book with a multitude of complex characters and plot-strands to the screen. Not that the film is an utter disaster, in fact it’s a minor miracle that it turned out as half-decent as it has done, but Snyder was a poor choice for director and is most-likely behind most of the films continuous pitfalls.

The first two scenes of the film stand out as the films finest as one showcases a taut action sequence so beautifully shot that you feel every blow and the other illuminating the alternative 1985 of the ‘Watchmen’ in a montage fittingly set to Bob Dylan’s ‘The Times They are a-Changin’’. These two scenes really capture the atmosphere and tone of the comic and if this level of craftsmanship had been kept up the film could have even given The Dark Knight a run for its money. Nevertheless the film does stick very closely to the comic throughout with a high attention to detail with many frames matching their comic counterparts. The cinematography in Watchmen also matches the intensity of the source material’s visual style well, combining bright costumes and iconography with a dark and dank landscape which immerses the audience into the world of the comic further still. The special effects used throughout are a marvel to look at and really bring the screen to life while rarely distracting the viewer from the story or characters. Visual touches such as Rorschach’s shape-shifting mask or the incredible motion capture work utilised for Dr Manhattan’s otherworldly image are a testament to modern technique and remind the audience why a film adaptation was worth doing in the first place.

For a superhero film the acting is mostly top-notch; the actors take their roles as disillusioned crime fighters seriously and it shows. Jackie Earle Haley’s Rorschach stands out as the films most accomplished character, seemingly channelling Travis Bickle by way of Batman in a ruthless yet emotionally layered performance. Patrick Wilson does a surprisingly good Daniel Dreiberg, it’s hard to imagine anyone other than Jeffrey Dean Morgan playing The Comedian and Billy Crudup also shines as the cold hearted Dr Manhattan. The cast is, however, let down by thoroughly unconvincing and cheesy turns by both Matthew Goode and Malin Åkerman (playing Adrian Veidt and Laurie Juspeczyk respectively).

The screenwriters have also, amazingly, managed to trim down the weighty graphic novel into a convincingly digestible two hours and a half with most of the main themes intact. The film is edited well enough via multiple flashbacks so that almost all of the main narrative from the source material is present with few notable exceptions (The Black Freighter and newsstand sections are regrettably neglected). Yes, the ending has been changed, but perhaps for the better. A sub-plot about a giant squid wouldn’t have fit the films tone, or been so readily accepted by audiences for that matter. The thematic concerns about 1980s Cold-war politics, the questionable stance of the vigilante in modern society and the deconstruction of the superhero are all well dealt with, and help elevate the film to something more than a bunch of middle aged costumed heroes punching each other to death.

However, the aforementioned faithful nature of Snyder’s adaptation is also one of the films biggest failings. The simple fact is that some things work in comics but don’t work in cinema. In attempting to stay loyal to the fans, Snyder ends up deconstructing the serious tone which he has worked so hard to maintain throughout the film. Several key scenes spring to mind such as Laurie walking in on Daniel standing naked, staring at his costume or the inclusion of Adrian’s frankly ridiculous looking mutated pet tiger. These and other moments such as the apartment block fire rescue simply do not ring true when placed in a film and if anything were simply laughable. Conversely some moments (Nite Owl II’s Revenge of the Sith Darth Vader impression) or interpretations of sequences (that sex scene) that were not present in the original comic were so cringe-worthy I felt embarrassed for even recommending the film to people.

Other, unrelated, problems are also present in the film. Snyder’s over-reliance on ‘racking’ is often distracting, repetitive and in some cases, downright inappropriate (the attempted rape scene). The film-makers also seem so keen to remind you that it’s the 1980s that several pieces of popular music from the era are implemented at often odd or jarring times throughout the film when it’s already abundantly clear to any cinemagoer which decade it’s set in. These faults and others previously mentioned severely hurt the film as a whole. In the end, watching Watchmen ultimately becomes a frustrating experience as these faults prevent it from obtaining the level of artistry it comes so close to achieving.

Final Verdict: 6/10

The Wrestler (2009)

WARNING: THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS.



Plot Summary: A drama centred on retired professional wrestler Randy "The Ram" Robinson as he makes his way through the independent circuit, trying to get back in the game for one final showdown with his former rival.

Until its surprising win at the Venice Film Festival relatively little was given away about The Wrestler. The premise was vague and there had only been a few amateur YouTube clips and set pictures floating around. Rumours started to circulate that Aronofsky had ditched his trademark stylistic approach and worry began to grow amongst fans as promotional material failed to surface. Having now been released worldwide it becomes clear that although the film restrains itself from the use of such striking film techniques which typified his previous work, the film nevertheless constitutes a considerable and memorable triumph in cinematic storytelling.

Far more than a vehicle for Mickey Rourke to merely flex his acting muscles the film turns out to be a sombre and slow chronicle of a desperate and lonely man in which I found myself entirely captivated with from start to finish. Rourke does do an incredible job, seemingly reliving past experiences as much as he is acting fictional ones. Much talk has been made of the parable one can read between Randy’s story arc and that of Rourke’s life, while making the role even more believable for fans does not detract anything for audiences unfamiliar with the actor also. He pours every inch of himself physically and mentally into the character and it shows. Rourke manages to make a potentially detestable man (letting his family down, lying to friends and thoroughly self-destructive behaviour) a utterly loveable one due to his honest and often amusing portrayal of a man trying to better himself.

The film was shot in winter and as such the film is full of grey skies and strong winds which perfectly compliment the contemplative atmosphere of the film. As mentioned the film is far less stylistic than say Requiem for a Dream or The Fountain and instead attempts to capture a more realistic, almost documentary feel with its numerous long takes and hand-held tracking shots. This held back approach arguably draws the audience in even further to the world of the film and showcases Aronofsky’s ability to connote emotion without relying on fancy camera work or visuals. There are, however, one or two stylistic flourishes such as the first entrance to the deli in which the sound of cheers can be heard, echoing the previous wrestling entrance scenes, enhancing our understanding of the character and his motivation (or lack of).

The soundtrack is half diagetic 1980s metal songs and half Clint Mansell’s touching score which at once demonstrates Randy’s image and taste but also portrayes his emotional plight extremely effectively. It is also worth mentioning that the fight scenes, although not the focus of the plot do feature often and are very well choreographed. The ensuing wounds the wrestlers suffer are also very authentic thanks to some impressive prophetic effects and really had me feeling their pain. The cliff-hanger ending and unresolved plot strands were particularly brave and much more realistic than seen in similar films. We don’t get closure; everything does not get better and everyone does not make-up in the end. The film leaves these questions open and for the audience to interpret themselves which is at once frustrating but also highly intellectually rewarding. The Wrestler is one of the lesser known films in the ongoing Oscar race but I urge everyone to not let the wrestling context put them off and to watch this extremely emotionally engaging piece of filmmaking as soon as they get the chance.

Final Verdict: 9/10

Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

WARNING: THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS.



Plot Summary: The story of the life of an impoverished Indian teen Jamal Malik, who becomes a contestant on the Hindi version of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" wins, and is then suspected of cheating.

Danny Boyle is responsible for one of my favourite films of all time; Trainspotting. Since its release in 1996 he has had a respectable career including several genre pieces such as 28 Days Later and Sunshine combined with the occasional quieter piece such as the enjoyable but severely overlooked Millions. However he has never since reached the dizzying heights of Scottish heroin addicts diving into toilet bowls in search for the next hit. Despite the slew of accolades and rave reviews being thrown at it Slumdog Millionaire is no different and is perhaps the director’s worst picture since the mind-numbingly awful farce that was The Beach.

That’s not to the say that this is a bad film because that simply isn’t true. When focusing on Jamal and his brother growing up in an impoverished Mumbai the film works as India’s answer to City of God. It’s gripping, realistically harsh and occasionally humorous depiction of orphans fending for themselves in a city that is as much of a character as anyone in the cast is as satisfying as any other film released in 2008. The films central love story is also hard not to embrace and endures enough twists and turns to warrant its upbeat conclusion. Meanwhile the soundtrack pulses along with a convincing blend of old and new Indian sounds with the occasional track by female artist MIA standing out particularly well.

Unfortunately when the film chooses to focus on the Who Wants to be a Millionaire plot-strand it commits every Hollywood cliché under the sun and suffers heavily for it. The logic to explain Jamal’s considerable intellect is thus; all the questions in the quiz somehow recall his most painful memories growing up as an orphan and as such the answers are forever ingrained in his memory. How is it that these questions are the one’s to be asked of him? The films answer is simple; fate. This plot device is at once a cop-out in order for Jamal to be reunited with his love interest (and the eventual, crowd pleasing happy ending) but also illustrates the films cheesy message; even though people are subjected to horrible events throughout their lives it only serves to better them and in the end, they’ll be rewarded.

This Hollywood melodrama gets worse as the film goes along. During the final moments of the film as we’ve subjected to hoards of the public huddled around electronics shops cheering for Jamal, gangster siblings staging shoot-outs in baths of money and an over-the-top Bollywood inspired dance sequence which runs over the credits. Another problem I had with the film was its use of over-stylised camera work and editing. Boyle insists on using a jerky slow-motion technique during some of the flashback scenes and instead of creating a gritty or realistic atmosphere just looked cheap and awkward. The way the film was edited was also questionable as flashbacks and forwards were blended together in an altogether unconvincing and confusing manner, not to mention several needless jump-cuts utilised.

Melodrama and sentimentalism are things to be appreciated, but they have their place (and indeed limits). Likewise unique and stylised cinema work is something to be praised but in this instance felt cheap and without worth. Perhaps the reason for the film’s success is the current economic climate and maybe people need this type of feel-good film at the moment. Slumdog Millionaire is far from the worst film of the year (that award probably goes to The Hottie & the Nottie) but is also far from the best of year and is somewhat of a missed opportunity from director Danny Boyle.

Final Verdict: 6/10

The Dark Knight (2008)

WARNING: THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS.



Plot Summary: Batman raises the stakes in his war on crime. With the help of Lieutenant Jim Gordon and District Attorney Harvey Dent, Batman sets out to dismantle the remaining criminal organizations that plague the city streets. The partnership proves to be effective, but they soon find themselves prey to a reign of chaos unleashed by a rising criminal mastermind known to the terrified citizens of Gotham as The Joker.

I've been looking forward to this film for a long time. Sorry I mean: really looking forward to this film, for a very long time. In retrospect I'm not entirely sure why I was captivated by the film to such an extent. Sure, I went to see Batman Begins and enjoyed it, but not amazingly. I've never been a massive fan of Batman and indeed never a fan of DC in general. However, I've always looked forward to any work by Christopher Nolan as he's a great English director. That coupled with the seemingly darker tone of the sequel and Heath Ledger's psychotic take on the The Joker got me into the geekiest hype frenzy I have ever partaken. Nevertheless, in the end, coming out of the darkened cinema in that blurry haze of bodies and lights I really wasn't all that satisfied.

That's not to say that The Dark Knight isn't a good, or rather great, film at all. The plot offers up an intriguing web of politicians, criminals, freaks and the citizens caught in-between them as Harvey Dent strives to clean up Gotham City, the local gang ring attempt to reclaim their authority and The Joker wreaks his unique blend of violent anarchy. The themes of terrorism, moral ambiguity and sacrifice which the film addresses are all interesting and relevant while never feeling too biased or patronising. As expected the audience are given a master class in acting from almost all involved all the way from Christian Bale's brilliantly conflicted Bruce Wayne to Michael Cain's ever-wise Alfred. Untimely death or no untimely death it's a fact; Heath Ledger's Joker steals the show. He's every bit as twisted and insane as I had hoped and is probably the best thing about the film.

The score by Zimmer and Howard is even better than the fine job done on Batman Begins as it continues to establish Batman's theme and introduces two more for the new lead villains. The Joker's theme literally shocked me in the cinema and combined with the highly disturbing imagery made me squirm in my seat. It was a risky choice to stick with a theme based on only two notes, especially for such a complex character, but this simple stylistic touch created an unprecedented amount of dread whenever implemented. Likewise the cinematography was impressively unique for a summer blockbuster with subtle blue filters (not to mention the slick opening sequence) reminiscent of Heat creating a truly downbeat atmosphere throughout the film. Nolan uses his camera to great effect particularly when employing a spinning pan around The Joker's head while dangling in the air and the use of some very engrossing shadow play in the interrogation scene was very impressive.

Having said this, and as pointed out earlier, this is not a perfect film as some will have you believe. Its main problem lies in pacing and editing. The Dark Knight could have easily been two films as it rushes through many different plot strands and introduces the audience to a new character almost every other minute. I found some scene changes rather abrupt and during the chase sequence the bat-pod almost seemed to have teleportation abilities as it certainly felt like a lot of the scene was left on the cutting room floor. The main offender here is the character of Two-Face with his rushed rampage and hasty demise. Don't get me wrong, Nolan has done the character proud and I enjoyed every minute he was on the screen but he could have been portrayed in a much better way if introduced in this film and then given his own sequel to develop in.

Another, more personal, problem I had with the film was its tone. The big question is, and always will be; is Batman for children or adults? With Batman Begins Nolan cleverly made a film for both audiences but The Dark Knight is a different issue. It feels like Nolan really wants to give us his 15/18 certificate version of the film, but knows he can't. Throughout the film it really felt like the atmosphere promised so much more violence, but always held back. Despite these faults the film is still well and truly a tour de force of modern filmmaking. Both quickly becoming a box office and critical darling this film will be remembered for a long time to come.

Final Verdict: 8/10