Neil Marshall knows how to do violence. Dog Soldiers was a smashing debut and fantastic take on the Werewolf tale, pitting the British army against a family of lycanthropes, The Descent was a brilliantly claustrophobic horror film involving a girls weekend away caving and Doomsday, the story of a Scotland walled off after the outbreak of a virus but now locked in civil war, was a darkly violent mess of a film. I suppose it was only a matter of time before he went back in time and had a crack at the Roman era and a sword and sandals epic.
With his previous efforts Neil Marshall has managed to carefully straddle the thin line between naff and cult. He somehow managed to make genre films that were clearly influenced by the work of others, even nodding and referencing at times, but layer them with something original, something that gave them a bit of something extra. So it's even more disappointing that he lazily cobbles together a plot which has massive elements of Gladiator (revenge, blah, blah) and then combines it with the surviving resistance strand of 300. Effectively, he decides to make a film as a British, cult, homage to those two films but decides to just rip the stories off completely.
He gets together quite a cast as well. All sorts of British talent. Michael Fassbender, Dominic West, Noel Clarke, David Morrissey and Riz Ahmed. All playing varying types of soldier with different levels of fighting skill, but none of which have anything interesting to do whatsoever other than killing or maybe dying in an interesting way. Fassbender is the closest we have to a character, bit of conflict here, an angry look into the distance there. Not exactly The King's Speech. The ace up his sleeve is Olga Kurylenko as a female Pict warrior. The inclusion of a seemingly indestructible female lead is meant to be that bit of something extra. It offers nothing though, not a sausage (no pun intended - ok, maybe it was).
I shouldn't spend too much time worrying about plot and acting though, because it's not exactly the biggest draw of this sort of film. It's the action, the blood, the gore. How does Centurion fare in this department? Well if that's what your after it does it very well. The action is as you would expect, frenetic editing of swords, axes, arrows and any other type of weapon you can imagine thrashing about cutting through flesh. There's a good scene that heralds the introduction of rolling fireballs to the compendium of tools at the disposal of Romans. The gore quota is also met well, squelchy sounds and claret flying everywhere satisfy those needs more than adequately. The truth is though that this isn't nearly enough. Decapitation and dismembered limbs aren't enough to make up for a distinct lack of everything else. It's all just so boring.....lacking. My concentration wavered constantly. It's only 97 minutes long, that should not be happening.
I've asked myself why Centurion is so different from Marshall's other films, both Dog Soldiers and The Descent are essentially the same, people striving for survival against the odds. With lots of violence. I've not been able to answer that question though, but there is definitely something missing, an edge, a soul, I don't know, I could throw a collection of other pretentious words at it, it might just be the absence of Sean Pertwee dying in a horrendous manner, but whatever is missing Marshall needs to find it because as the budgets are getting bigger he's losing something.
Not even worth watching when you get home from the pub drunk with a kebab.
About Me
- Ollie Miney
- Lover of all things film, ready to tell you what to avoid, and more importantly, what to seek out.
Monday 28 March 2011
Sunday 27 March 2011
CLERKS (1994 - Cert 18)
Have you ever been completely convinced that you've seen a film, sit down to re-watch it years later only to discover that you've never seen it before? Well this is exactly what happened to me with Clerks recently. I've gone through life thinking I've seen the film, all be it a very long time ago, and every time it has come up in conversation, every time I've read an article or a book that refers to it, I nod in acknowledgement. So as I flicked through the movie channels and came across it, I was flicked it on thinking to myself, 'it's about time I watched this again'.
Then it started, and it became clear that either my memory had completely gone or I had never watched the film in my entire life. It explained a lot actually. When I cast my mind back I realised that when people talked about their favourite moments in the movie, I tended to not be entirely sure what they were on about. Plus, I always had a complete indifference to the film, which one would obviously had if they hadn't actually seen it.
So now that I have finally got around to watching it, what did I think?
Well I loved it. It's clear to see why it became, and remains, a cult classic. It's original, there's nothing I've seen quite like it, in terms of set up, but also due to it's desert dry and pessimistic wit. Kevin Smith's script is a thing of genius. Nothing really happens in the film, it's just a day in the life of two store clerks in their early twenties, Brian O'Halloran (Dante) and Jeff Anderson (Randall). That's it. For a film with that little in terms of plot, the script has to be so tight and engaging to ensure that you keep the viewer on board. In fact, the only times that the film doesn't work are when the action is taken out of the store, such as the funeral scene. It's a shame because while the film stays grounded to the dull daily life, rather than extravagant plot points, it sucks you in and keeps you hooked.
So why is it so good? Well the dialogue for starters. It must be said that I don't honestly believe that many young men in New Jersey really talk like this, it suffers from what I call Dawsons Creek syndrome, but the patter between the characters is totally funny. Sardonic put downs and philosophical musings are all brilliant. The one that most people refer to is the debate about contract workers aboard the uncompleted Death Star. It's brilliantly deadpan and much of the film follows this tone and humour. Smith introduces other bit-part characters, such as the now famous in their own right Jay and Silent Bob, that bounce of the two 'heroes' and become foils for their patter. It's done tremendously with some wonderfully realised characters that all fit perfectly into the small insular world that Smith has created.
The other important thing about the film is the attitude that it summarises. The two lead characters are at a point in their lives when they should be thinking about growing up and what direction their life should take. However, both Dante and Randall struggle to know exactly what to do to kick on. Their are feelings of frustration, hopelessness, insecurity, self-doubt and fear that hold them back. I'm not saying that I went through a period in my life quite in the same way, but I'm sure we've all worried in the past about what we are going to do with our lives and what we might leave behind. It's a real triumph that Smith has managed to address this so poignantly and maturely in a film that on the surface seems to be merely a foul mouthed comedy.
It isn't going to be for everyone, it is very, very raw (what do you expect for $27,500?), a lot of the humour is geared towards a male audience and there are some moments where a ball is dropped, but this shouldn't stop anyone from seeing a film that is a snapshot of a time in recent American history and an insight, all be it a pessimistic one, into a stage in our lives that we must all experience.
Then it started, and it became clear that either my memory had completely gone or I had never watched the film in my entire life. It explained a lot actually. When I cast my mind back I realised that when people talked about their favourite moments in the movie, I tended to not be entirely sure what they were on about. Plus, I always had a complete indifference to the film, which one would obviously had if they hadn't actually seen it.
So now that I have finally got around to watching it, what did I think?
Well I loved it. It's clear to see why it became, and remains, a cult classic. It's original, there's nothing I've seen quite like it, in terms of set up, but also due to it's desert dry and pessimistic wit. Kevin Smith's script is a thing of genius. Nothing really happens in the film, it's just a day in the life of two store clerks in their early twenties, Brian O'Halloran (Dante) and Jeff Anderson (Randall). That's it. For a film with that little in terms of plot, the script has to be so tight and engaging to ensure that you keep the viewer on board. In fact, the only times that the film doesn't work are when the action is taken out of the store, such as the funeral scene. It's a shame because while the film stays grounded to the dull daily life, rather than extravagant plot points, it sucks you in and keeps you hooked.
So why is it so good? Well the dialogue for starters. It must be said that I don't honestly believe that many young men in New Jersey really talk like this, it suffers from what I call Dawsons Creek syndrome, but the patter between the characters is totally funny. Sardonic put downs and philosophical musings are all brilliant. The one that most people refer to is the debate about contract workers aboard the uncompleted Death Star. It's brilliantly deadpan and much of the film follows this tone and humour. Smith introduces other bit-part characters, such as the now famous in their own right Jay and Silent Bob, that bounce of the two 'heroes' and become foils for their patter. It's done tremendously with some wonderfully realised characters that all fit perfectly into the small insular world that Smith has created.
The other important thing about the film is the attitude that it summarises. The two lead characters are at a point in their lives when they should be thinking about growing up and what direction their life should take. However, both Dante and Randall struggle to know exactly what to do to kick on. Their are feelings of frustration, hopelessness, insecurity, self-doubt and fear that hold them back. I'm not saying that I went through a period in my life quite in the same way, but I'm sure we've all worried in the past about what we are going to do with our lives and what we might leave behind. It's a real triumph that Smith has managed to address this so poignantly and maturely in a film that on the surface seems to be merely a foul mouthed comedy.
It isn't going to be for everyone, it is very, very raw (what do you expect for $27,500?), a lot of the humour is geared towards a male audience and there are some moments where a ball is dropped, but this shouldn't stop anyone from seeing a film that is a snapshot of a time in recent American history and an insight, all be it a pessimistic one, into a stage in our lives that we must all experience.
Saturday 26 March 2011
THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU (2011 - Cert 12A)
'BOURNE MEETS INCEPTION'.
This is what is splayed across the poster for the latest adaptation of a Philip K Dick story. What does that even mean? At it's most basic level, I suppose you can get away with it. Matt Damon (Bourne) is in it, it's directed by George Nolfi who had a hand in scripts for two of the Bourne films and it is about an alternative reality. However, that is where the comparisons, between a grittily real, up-close, spy thriller and one of the greatest mind-bending vision of a dreamworld, end. The Adjustment Bureau is everything that both of those films are not.
But is that good or bad?
Matt Damon isn't an amnesiac assassin here, instead he is David Morris, a charismatic politician on the verge of great things. Running for senator of New York, all seems to be going swimmingly only for a New of The World type tabloid sting that knocks his campaign for six. On the evening of his defeat he is about to make a speech to announce he will be back, when he bumps into Elise (Emily Blunt), a mysterious women in the men's room. One kiss later and he is totally gaga. He improvises a speech that makes his popularity shoot through the roof, but he obsesses over Elise. As he pursues her it becomes clear that a shadowy organisation do not want the two of them to be together. That's all you're getting on the plot front I'm afraid.
Having denied you anything more, it must be said that the film doesn't really have a big reveal, where tensions build to a huge earth shattering plot point. Instead it is very underplayed and is one of the great things about the movie. It doesn't treat the science fiction element as mysterious, attempting to keep you guessing, it just tells you what is happening, has a bit of fun explaining it and then let's the film play out in that way. The other sci-fi tradition that it isn't tempted on is the grey tones often associated with the future/alternative realities. Instead it is brightly coloured, the sun is shining (tellingly until the final sequence), New York looks as good as ever. What all of this works towards is something fun. Inception was a lot of things but it never exactly bounced along in a fun kind of way. The Adjustment Bureau does, never taking itself too seriously, not laughing at itself, but not holding itself up as 'vital' science fiction in a self-important kind of way.
This approach to the material, however, does mean that there has to be a strong degree of suspension of disbelief from the viewer, and the key to that is characters. The relationship at the centre of it really makes the film and keeps it rolling along. Essentially a 'will they, won't they' for a different audience, the fact it stays interesting and kept me engaged is an indication of the quality of the performances of the two leads. Matt Damon who had a bad press since his depiction in Team America, really is a fine actor. Performances like his in The Departed and Invictus really show him to be versatile and in The Adjustment Bureau he is immensely likeable, a good mixture of being confused, resigned, determined and in love. Although it's not exactly Oscar fare, there is enough in the role for him to really show off what he can do. It takes two to tango and thankfully Emily Blunt pulls her weight as well. The early scenes where her and Damon share the screen and the two characters get to know each other are genuinely, well, nice. They spark off one another and create a relationship that is believable. As the films nears it's conclusion she becomes less important as Damon becomes the focus, but her presence in the film is enough to ensure that the romance between the pair is the glue that keeps the film together. With so many ideas flying around it could easily get out of hand but Damon and Blunt keep the film grounded. With Nick and Norah, this is the second film that I've seen recently that really highlights that getting that central combination is key to a movie's success.
Supporting them are the various members of the Bureau itself. A bit Matrix, part traditional FBI agents, John Slattery, Anthony Mackie and good old Terrence Stamp have a ball looking sinister and chasing our heroes. They are ideal for the tone of the film, menace but in a 12A kind of way.
So back to the 'Bourne meets Inception' tag. It's not only incorrect, it also does the Adjustment Bureau a massive disservice. That quote is meant to get people through the door, but if people are going to watch it based on that statement they are going to be disappointed, because it isn't anywhere near as raw as Bourne and it doesn't have the cerebral challenge of Inception, What it is though is a charming, very entertaining, colourful, science fiction that is about love and the lengths people go to for it.
This is what is splayed across the poster for the latest adaptation of a Philip K Dick story. What does that even mean? At it's most basic level, I suppose you can get away with it. Matt Damon (Bourne) is in it, it's directed by George Nolfi who had a hand in scripts for two of the Bourne films and it is about an alternative reality. However, that is where the comparisons, between a grittily real, up-close, spy thriller and one of the greatest mind-bending vision of a dreamworld, end. The Adjustment Bureau is everything that both of those films are not.
But is that good or bad?
Matt Damon isn't an amnesiac assassin here, instead he is David Morris, a charismatic politician on the verge of great things. Running for senator of New York, all seems to be going swimmingly only for a New of The World type tabloid sting that knocks his campaign for six. On the evening of his defeat he is about to make a speech to announce he will be back, when he bumps into Elise (Emily Blunt), a mysterious women in the men's room. One kiss later and he is totally gaga. He improvises a speech that makes his popularity shoot through the roof, but he obsesses over Elise. As he pursues her it becomes clear that a shadowy organisation do not want the two of them to be together. That's all you're getting on the plot front I'm afraid.
Having denied you anything more, it must be said that the film doesn't really have a big reveal, where tensions build to a huge earth shattering plot point. Instead it is very underplayed and is one of the great things about the movie. It doesn't treat the science fiction element as mysterious, attempting to keep you guessing, it just tells you what is happening, has a bit of fun explaining it and then let's the film play out in that way. The other sci-fi tradition that it isn't tempted on is the grey tones often associated with the future/alternative realities. Instead it is brightly coloured, the sun is shining (tellingly until the final sequence), New York looks as good as ever. What all of this works towards is something fun. Inception was a lot of things but it never exactly bounced along in a fun kind of way. The Adjustment Bureau does, never taking itself too seriously, not laughing at itself, but not holding itself up as 'vital' science fiction in a self-important kind of way.
This approach to the material, however, does mean that there has to be a strong degree of suspension of disbelief from the viewer, and the key to that is characters. The relationship at the centre of it really makes the film and keeps it rolling along. Essentially a 'will they, won't they' for a different audience, the fact it stays interesting and kept me engaged is an indication of the quality of the performances of the two leads. Matt Damon who had a bad press since his depiction in Team America, really is a fine actor. Performances like his in The Departed and Invictus really show him to be versatile and in The Adjustment Bureau he is immensely likeable, a good mixture of being confused, resigned, determined and in love. Although it's not exactly Oscar fare, there is enough in the role for him to really show off what he can do. It takes two to tango and thankfully Emily Blunt pulls her weight as well. The early scenes where her and Damon share the screen and the two characters get to know each other are genuinely, well, nice. They spark off one another and create a relationship that is believable. As the films nears it's conclusion she becomes less important as Damon becomes the focus, but her presence in the film is enough to ensure that the romance between the pair is the glue that keeps the film together. With so many ideas flying around it could easily get out of hand but Damon and Blunt keep the film grounded. With Nick and Norah, this is the second film that I've seen recently that really highlights that getting that central combination is key to a movie's success.
Supporting them are the various members of the Bureau itself. A bit Matrix, part traditional FBI agents, John Slattery, Anthony Mackie and good old Terrence Stamp have a ball looking sinister and chasing our heroes. They are ideal for the tone of the film, menace but in a 12A kind of way.
So back to the 'Bourne meets Inception' tag. It's not only incorrect, it also does the Adjustment Bureau a massive disservice. That quote is meant to get people through the door, but if people are going to watch it based on that statement they are going to be disappointed, because it isn't anywhere near as raw as Bourne and it doesn't have the cerebral challenge of Inception, What it is though is a charming, very entertaining, colourful, science fiction that is about love and the lengths people go to for it.
Monday 21 March 2011
NICK AND NORAH'S INFINITE PLAYLIST (2008 - Cert 12A)
After my girlfriend and I finished watching this film I turned to her and said 'I really, really enjoyed that'. To which she taunted me with 'Ha ha, you like a Rom-com'.
I refuted her allegation immediately, denying that it was actually a rom-com. 'Of course it is', she responded. 'It was about two people falling for each other and it made you laugh'. She had me there. Of course it was a rom-com. If you break that title down, Rom = romantic and Com = comedy, it couldn't be anything else. The question I asked myself was, why did I protest so much? Rom-Com has become a term that is immediately sneered at, to some people it isn't even a genre, it's simply a derogatory way to describe a film. I admit I'm not the biggest fan of the field but all Rom-coms, even the one's starring Jennifer Aniston (ie all of them), do contain romance and do attempt to make audiences laugh, but why do so many fail on both counts, while Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist charmed the pants off me?
When I read the blurb I was convinced it was going to irritate me. It was about two youngsters, their friends and one night out in the Indie-world of New York as they try to track down the venue of a secret gig that their favourite band is playing. Basically all the things that annoy me about the cool part of East London (please note that this is all jealousy, I wish I was cool. But I am not. Simple as that). However the film didn't try to play up to that knowing, self-indulgent Indie vibe that is taking so many cities by storm. It recognises it, at times embraces it but at others takes the mick out of it. Not in a spoof way, not a broad way, not even in a nasty way, just like shy friendly banter.
The other thing that caused bad preconceptions was the casting of Michael Cera as Nick. I liked him in Juno, I liked him in Superbad, but by the time Scott Pilgrim came around, I was convinced that he had started to irritate me and he was on the way down. How could he keep getting away with being the same person in all his films? After this film though, I was back in Camp Cera. He doesn't do anything differently, he is still the shy, geeky, self-deprecating teen muttering funny musings quietly, but it goes back to being endearing, not annoying. My brief stint of dissatisfaction with Cera should now probably be attributed to one of the many failings of Scott Pilgrim rather than anything else.
What good is Cera if the other half of the romance is rubbish though? e Kat Dennings, who you may recognise as the teenage daughter from The 40 Year Old Virgin, is on love interest duty here. Like Cera, I really liked her performance. She had the difficult job of having to be likeable enough to make Nick (and us) fancy her a bit but also down to earth and plain enough to make her attainable. The ultimate girl next door. She manages it though, she's never irritating and makes a fully-dimensional character that keeps proceedings more than interesting.
So, the first thing you need to make a rom-com exactly that, a comedy with romance, is a central couple that the viewer likes and empathises with. The second thing that is important is the supporting cast. Its hard to have an entire film hinging completely on two people, so those supplementing the action are important. In this film we have his friends, her friends and their respective ex's. His friends are his gay mates who make up his band (The Jerk Offs) played by Aaron Yoo and Rafi Gavron. Both are funny, and have a bit of fun with being gay but don't ram any stereotypes down your throat. Her friend is played by Ari Gaynor and is a drunk who gets lost midway through the night. Her scenes contain the broadest comedy, ie puking, but the film just about gets away with it, by making the puking quite charming (honestly, it does). The ex's Alexis Dziena and Jay Baruchel are nasty and annoying enough respectively to mean we all root for their downfall.
So, a couple at the centre of it who we like, a host of supporting players to make sure everything ticks along and stays interesting. Its not enough though to guarantee that the romance and the comedy stay afloat. We need to leave the cinema or remove the DVD with a warm and fuzzy feeling, our emotions need to echo those of the leads.
Nick and Norah really pulls it off though. I think the key ingredient is the innocence that the film has. The characters are all young, but they don't seem to be too desperate to grow up and get stuck into proper relationships. The love on show here is unspoilt and naive. The closing scene in a recording studio sums the film up perfectly, essentially a sex scene, but without the sex and without seeing anything whatsoever. It's done beautifully and stays consistent to the theme of music (the film has a smashing soundtrack) that runs throughout. It's a scene that finishes with the same socially awkward shyness that is always there with both Nick and Norah and one that resulted in me choking back tears.
So the romance is there but is the comedy? Yes it is, and resoundingly so. The writing and dialogue is funny and sharp, the scrapes they all get into are funny but don't feel too forced, there is enough 'gross out' and physical humour to keep our inner kids happy. It's all there and done in a sufficiently touching way to be consistent with the tone of the film.
We've all watched rom-coms over the years, so I challenge you to think back, really rack your brains and try to think of one that contains all the elements. Two leads who you immediately like, who you empathise with, a relationship that you believe in, smaller parts that don't grate and annoy, plot twists that don't feel contrived and there for the sake of it, but most of all a heart.
Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist is a film that perfectly sums up the teenage crush. It might not always go according to plan, but despite that it seems like the most important thing in the world and you're convinced that nothing will ever damage it. And for that moment it is both pure and perfect.
A snapshot of youth.
I refuted her allegation immediately, denying that it was actually a rom-com. 'Of course it is', she responded. 'It was about two people falling for each other and it made you laugh'. She had me there. Of course it was a rom-com. If you break that title down, Rom = romantic and Com = comedy, it couldn't be anything else. The question I asked myself was, why did I protest so much? Rom-Com has become a term that is immediately sneered at, to some people it isn't even a genre, it's simply a derogatory way to describe a film. I admit I'm not the biggest fan of the field but all Rom-coms, even the one's starring Jennifer Aniston (ie all of them), do contain romance and do attempt to make audiences laugh, but why do so many fail on both counts, while Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist charmed the pants off me?
When I read the blurb I was convinced it was going to irritate me. It was about two youngsters, their friends and one night out in the Indie-world of New York as they try to track down the venue of a secret gig that their favourite band is playing. Basically all the things that annoy me about the cool part of East London (please note that this is all jealousy, I wish I was cool. But I am not. Simple as that). However the film didn't try to play up to that knowing, self-indulgent Indie vibe that is taking so many cities by storm. It recognises it, at times embraces it but at others takes the mick out of it. Not in a spoof way, not a broad way, not even in a nasty way, just like shy friendly banter.
The other thing that caused bad preconceptions was the casting of Michael Cera as Nick. I liked him in Juno, I liked him in Superbad, but by the time Scott Pilgrim came around, I was convinced that he had started to irritate me and he was on the way down. How could he keep getting away with being the same person in all his films? After this film though, I was back in Camp Cera. He doesn't do anything differently, he is still the shy, geeky, self-deprecating teen muttering funny musings quietly, but it goes back to being endearing, not annoying. My brief stint of dissatisfaction with Cera should now probably be attributed to one of the many failings of Scott Pilgrim rather than anything else.
What good is Cera if the other half of the romance is rubbish though? e Kat Dennings, who you may recognise as the teenage daughter from The 40 Year Old Virgin, is on love interest duty here. Like Cera, I really liked her performance. She had the difficult job of having to be likeable enough to make Nick (and us) fancy her a bit but also down to earth and plain enough to make her attainable. The ultimate girl next door. She manages it though, she's never irritating and makes a fully-dimensional character that keeps proceedings more than interesting.
So, the first thing you need to make a rom-com exactly that, a comedy with romance, is a central couple that the viewer likes and empathises with. The second thing that is important is the supporting cast. Its hard to have an entire film hinging completely on two people, so those supplementing the action are important. In this film we have his friends, her friends and their respective ex's. His friends are his gay mates who make up his band (The Jerk Offs) played by Aaron Yoo and Rafi Gavron. Both are funny, and have a bit of fun with being gay but don't ram any stereotypes down your throat. Her friend is played by Ari Gaynor and is a drunk who gets lost midway through the night. Her scenes contain the broadest comedy, ie puking, but the film just about gets away with it, by making the puking quite charming (honestly, it does). The ex's Alexis Dziena and Jay Baruchel are nasty and annoying enough respectively to mean we all root for their downfall.
So, a couple at the centre of it who we like, a host of supporting players to make sure everything ticks along and stays interesting. Its not enough though to guarantee that the romance and the comedy stay afloat. We need to leave the cinema or remove the DVD with a warm and fuzzy feeling, our emotions need to echo those of the leads.
Nick and Norah really pulls it off though. I think the key ingredient is the innocence that the film has. The characters are all young, but they don't seem to be too desperate to grow up and get stuck into proper relationships. The love on show here is unspoilt and naive. The closing scene in a recording studio sums the film up perfectly, essentially a sex scene, but without the sex and without seeing anything whatsoever. It's done beautifully and stays consistent to the theme of music (the film has a smashing soundtrack) that runs throughout. It's a scene that finishes with the same socially awkward shyness that is always there with both Nick and Norah and one that resulted in me choking back tears.
So the romance is there but is the comedy? Yes it is, and resoundingly so. The writing and dialogue is funny and sharp, the scrapes they all get into are funny but don't feel too forced, there is enough 'gross out' and physical humour to keep our inner kids happy. It's all there and done in a sufficiently touching way to be consistent with the tone of the film.
We've all watched rom-coms over the years, so I challenge you to think back, really rack your brains and try to think of one that contains all the elements. Two leads who you immediately like, who you empathise with, a relationship that you believe in, smaller parts that don't grate and annoy, plot twists that don't feel contrived and there for the sake of it, but most of all a heart.
Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist is a film that perfectly sums up the teenage crush. It might not always go according to plan, but despite that it seems like the most important thing in the world and you're convinced that nothing will ever damage it. And for that moment it is both pure and perfect.
A snapshot of youth.
Sunday 20 March 2011
BRIGHTON ROCK (2010 - Cert 15)
In many ways perhaps I am the perfect audience for this updated version of Graham Green's often revered novel. I've not read the book, I've not seen the 1947 adaptation starring Richard Attenborough, in fact, somehow, I've managed to get to 30 years old without being told anything substantial about either. So, on a chilly midweek night when I utilised my brand new lifetime membership at the Prince Charles Cinema for the first time, would it prove to be a case of ignorance is bliss?
It's clear that Rowan Joffe, the first time director entrusted with this remake (although he isn't a complete novice - he had writing credits for the recent The American and 28 Weeks Later) thinks that the story is an important one as he tries to give it much more an epic and cinematic feel than is often applied to British productions. And I have to say that he makes a very good stab at it and for the most part succeeds. Big bold shots of the waves crashing in towards the seafront, with a score that very much reminded me of Taxi Driver and Shutter Island, building to a crescendo, and then falling silent - the viewer is under no illusions that something bad is going to happen. He is very daring with the camera and creates some beautifully juxtaposing shots such as one with a row of colourful, quaint houses with a huge, dark tower block directly behind it. It's a statement about the time in Britain 1964, in which the film is set, and it's when Joffe focuses on the era, rather than the original's 1930's setting, where the film works. The set up of the film, although not what it is actually about, is essentially a gangland/gangster story where a murder by Pinkie (Sam Riley) causes big ripples and must be covered up at all costs. Bringing this story into 1964 is a brave move but one that, at times, clicks into place. The Mods and Rockers descend onto Brighton and Pinky's penchant for violence and ruthless streak all of a sudden becomes something with a social context, not just a trait of that particular character. 1964 was also the year of the last hangings in the UK, so bringing the story forward any further would mean a very different fate if police caught those committing the murder. There is also an underplayed, yet I found very hard to watch scene, in which a father signs away permission for his daughter to marry, for £175. Often films will be set in a era just so that a character can wear a cool hat, but the decision of when to set Brighton Rock was one with a lot of intention.
Having said that, large parts of the film are dull and far from fresh. It may be because we are over exposed to films, TV and stories of gangsters, but the plot line involving rival gangs going after each other and eluding the law, speaking aggressively in smoky rooms and threatening revenge all got a bit boring. I even looked at my watch at one stage, which is never a good sign, especially when I wasn't wearing one.
However, as I said previously, the film isn't actually about gangsters. It's about Pinkie and his descent into madness through desperation and the lengths to which he will go to in order to avoid capture. Even more integral to proceedings is the doomed relationship, between Pinkie and Rose (Andrea Riseborough), doomed because of the control and manipulation they both have over one another, and how blind and oblivious love can be. At times, the scenes played out by the two of them are great, full of tension and boiling over with potential conflict, a hair's breadth away from violence. At others though, they feel overly laboured and, the be frank, dull. Sam Riley, who I loved in Control and was good in the strange and interesting Franklyn, is inconsistent in Brighton Rock. There are scenes where he has me totally convinced of his unpredictability, then 20 minutes later, my mind wandered and I was put off by his strange accent. Riseborough however is very good. Delicate and determined all at the same time, walking a tightrope, I sensed that she could go either way at any point. One to watch. More established names appear in the supporting cast - Helen Mirren has fun as Rose's maternal boss figure, trying to save Rose and expose Pinkie. She is as always very good. John Hurt is watchable but in a role that I couldn't help but feel was a bit pointless. Phillip Davis plays what he always plays, Phillip Davis I think. Andy Serkis plays a caricature of a rich gangster boss, sitting in his hotel room in immaculate clothes with camp overtones - decent but a bit odd (not in a good way).
So, if you haven't picked it up yet, it's a film of hits and misses. There are great scenes in there, particularly an attempted murder amongst the riots of Mods and Rockers and an escape on a scooter along the seafront. Equally though there are a number of scenes that really test the patience. It's ambitious and brave - a remake of such a highly regarded film could have been safer with less risks, but the fact they have tried to do something interesting with the material should be commended. Plus it has an ending that really makes amends for the rest of the film. The final confrontation is tense and dark, and unexpected, but the very last scene glides towards what I thought was to be a slightly predictable, if upsetting, denouement, only to veer away at the last minute to something very different and even more hearbreaking. A great finish to an otherwise patchy film.
It's clear that Rowan Joffe, the first time director entrusted with this remake (although he isn't a complete novice - he had writing credits for the recent The American and 28 Weeks Later) thinks that the story is an important one as he tries to give it much more an epic and cinematic feel than is often applied to British productions. And I have to say that he makes a very good stab at it and for the most part succeeds. Big bold shots of the waves crashing in towards the seafront, with a score that very much reminded me of Taxi Driver and Shutter Island, building to a crescendo, and then falling silent - the viewer is under no illusions that something bad is going to happen. He is very daring with the camera and creates some beautifully juxtaposing shots such as one with a row of colourful, quaint houses with a huge, dark tower block directly behind it. It's a statement about the time in Britain 1964, in which the film is set, and it's when Joffe focuses on the era, rather than the original's 1930's setting, where the film works. The set up of the film, although not what it is actually about, is essentially a gangland/gangster story where a murder by Pinkie (Sam Riley) causes big ripples and must be covered up at all costs. Bringing this story into 1964 is a brave move but one that, at times, clicks into place. The Mods and Rockers descend onto Brighton and Pinky's penchant for violence and ruthless streak all of a sudden becomes something with a social context, not just a trait of that particular character. 1964 was also the year of the last hangings in the UK, so bringing the story forward any further would mean a very different fate if police caught those committing the murder. There is also an underplayed, yet I found very hard to watch scene, in which a father signs away permission for his daughter to marry, for £175. Often films will be set in a era just so that a character can wear a cool hat, but the decision of when to set Brighton Rock was one with a lot of intention.
Having said that, large parts of the film are dull and far from fresh. It may be because we are over exposed to films, TV and stories of gangsters, but the plot line involving rival gangs going after each other and eluding the law, speaking aggressively in smoky rooms and threatening revenge all got a bit boring. I even looked at my watch at one stage, which is never a good sign, especially when I wasn't wearing one.
However, as I said previously, the film isn't actually about gangsters. It's about Pinkie and his descent into madness through desperation and the lengths to which he will go to in order to avoid capture. Even more integral to proceedings is the doomed relationship, between Pinkie and Rose (Andrea Riseborough), doomed because of the control and manipulation they both have over one another, and how blind and oblivious love can be. At times, the scenes played out by the two of them are great, full of tension and boiling over with potential conflict, a hair's breadth away from violence. At others though, they feel overly laboured and, the be frank, dull. Sam Riley, who I loved in Control and was good in the strange and interesting Franklyn, is inconsistent in Brighton Rock. There are scenes where he has me totally convinced of his unpredictability, then 20 minutes later, my mind wandered and I was put off by his strange accent. Riseborough however is very good. Delicate and determined all at the same time, walking a tightrope, I sensed that she could go either way at any point. One to watch. More established names appear in the supporting cast - Helen Mirren has fun as Rose's maternal boss figure, trying to save Rose and expose Pinkie. She is as always very good. John Hurt is watchable but in a role that I couldn't help but feel was a bit pointless. Phillip Davis plays what he always plays, Phillip Davis I think. Andy Serkis plays a caricature of a rich gangster boss, sitting in his hotel room in immaculate clothes with camp overtones - decent but a bit odd (not in a good way).
So, if you haven't picked it up yet, it's a film of hits and misses. There are great scenes in there, particularly an attempted murder amongst the riots of Mods and Rockers and an escape on a scooter along the seafront. Equally though there are a number of scenes that really test the patience. It's ambitious and brave - a remake of such a highly regarded film could have been safer with less risks, but the fact they have tried to do something interesting with the material should be commended. Plus it has an ending that really makes amends for the rest of the film. The final confrontation is tense and dark, and unexpected, but the very last scene glides towards what I thought was to be a slightly predictable, if upsetting, denouement, only to veer away at the last minute to something very different and even more hearbreaking. A great finish to an otherwise patchy film.
Monday 14 March 2011
THE CRAZIES (1973 - Cert 18)
I like to consider myself a fan of George A Romero's catalogue. Although my patience has been tried by some of his more recent offerings, The Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead, in particular, are two big favourites of mine. Having said that, I must admit that The Crazies, made back in 1973, passed me by. It wasn't until recently, when I saw a trailer for the recent remake (for which Romero was an executive producer) that I really became aware of it's existence. I've had the remake on my 'high priority' list with Lovefilm for months now, but they seem completely unwilling to let me see it. So as I pottered around HMV in Selfridges I saw, for the small sum of £7, the original and the remake, packaged together. I immediately grabbed it and headed straight to the counter.
Wanting to be seen to do the right thing, I decided to watch the almost forty year old original first. You have to do these things properly don't you?
As a fan of Romero's gift of creating horror films, that not only shock, but also have the ability to generate laughter and also make not exactly subtle political statements, I knew I was on safe and familiar ground five minutes in. Set in a small rural American town, the film shows how the military try to contain a man-made, biological weapon, virus and prevent an nationwide epidemic. When I say virus, we aren't talking about Dustin Hoffman and Rene Russo chasing monkey here. What we have here is something that has no effect on the appearance of those infected, but it drives it's victims mad, their brains might turn to mush or they might turn into bloodthirsty murderers. I know what you're thinking, sounds a bit like Zombies. The set up might sound similar, but this is a very different beast.
There are effectively two separate things going on in The Crazies. The first is the unsettling thought of your friends and family looking fine on the surface but ultimately going 'postal' and coming after you or just going absolutely potty. The opening scene is a cracking and disturbing way to kicks things off. Two kids peering round the corner watching their dad lose the plot, smashing the place up. Without giving anything away, once that scene is over, you know that this is a movie, and a film maker, that isn't going to play by the rules.
The other thing that the film focuses on is the part played by the army. The Crazies was made at a time when America was involved in the Vietnam war and you can tell, without being an expert on the subject, that this was very much on Romero's mind when he made it. The military wade in with no plan, a policy of 'shoot first, think second'. Consequently things don't exactly go to plan and the population of the town fight back and the army have no idea who 'the crazies' are. Romero captures the panic perfectly, no one knows what is happening, people want answers and the army just keep rounding people up. A doctor is sent straight to the infected zone with no thought, or equipment, and is left totally useless. For large parts of the 90 minute running time, it isn't a horror film at all, but a violent farce, a satirical critique of American military policy. What is interesting is that almost four decades on, the film is still applicable, all be it to a different conflict in a different part of the world.
It isn't pretty, not by a long chalk. It's rough and ready, the acting is far from great, the effects are dated, but that is something that can be said of a lot of Romero's films. 'It's the thought that counts' - I know it's an age old expression, but I really think it's appropriate for him and his films. With that in mind, it's classic Romero and is up there with Dawn of the Dead, although a lot more serious in tone without the cheeky black humour. It also has one of the most eerie endings to a film I've seen in a long time, that is still floating around my head a week since I saw it. There is no big victory at the end for mankind or the army, it's very matter-of-fact, and one final damning verdict on the military might of Uncle Sam.
Wanting to be seen to do the right thing, I decided to watch the almost forty year old original first. You have to do these things properly don't you?
As a fan of Romero's gift of creating horror films, that not only shock, but also have the ability to generate laughter and also make not exactly subtle political statements, I knew I was on safe and familiar ground five minutes in. Set in a small rural American town, the film shows how the military try to contain a man-made, biological weapon, virus and prevent an nationwide epidemic. When I say virus, we aren't talking about Dustin Hoffman and Rene Russo chasing monkey here. What we have here is something that has no effect on the appearance of those infected, but it drives it's victims mad, their brains might turn to mush or they might turn into bloodthirsty murderers. I know what you're thinking, sounds a bit like Zombies. The set up might sound similar, but this is a very different beast.
There are effectively two separate things going on in The Crazies. The first is the unsettling thought of your friends and family looking fine on the surface but ultimately going 'postal' and coming after you or just going absolutely potty. The opening scene is a cracking and disturbing way to kicks things off. Two kids peering round the corner watching their dad lose the plot, smashing the place up. Without giving anything away, once that scene is over, you know that this is a movie, and a film maker, that isn't going to play by the rules.
The other thing that the film focuses on is the part played by the army. The Crazies was made at a time when America was involved in the Vietnam war and you can tell, without being an expert on the subject, that this was very much on Romero's mind when he made it. The military wade in with no plan, a policy of 'shoot first, think second'. Consequently things don't exactly go to plan and the population of the town fight back and the army have no idea who 'the crazies' are. Romero captures the panic perfectly, no one knows what is happening, people want answers and the army just keep rounding people up. A doctor is sent straight to the infected zone with no thought, or equipment, and is left totally useless. For large parts of the 90 minute running time, it isn't a horror film at all, but a violent farce, a satirical critique of American military policy. What is interesting is that almost four decades on, the film is still applicable, all be it to a different conflict in a different part of the world.
It isn't pretty, not by a long chalk. It's rough and ready, the acting is far from great, the effects are dated, but that is something that can be said of a lot of Romero's films. 'It's the thought that counts' - I know it's an age old expression, but I really think it's appropriate for him and his films. With that in mind, it's classic Romero and is up there with Dawn of the Dead, although a lot more serious in tone without the cheeky black humour. It also has one of the most eerie endings to a film I've seen in a long time, that is still floating around my head a week since I saw it. There is no big victory at the end for mankind or the army, it's very matter-of-fact, and one final damning verdict on the military might of Uncle Sam.
Sunday 13 March 2011
SATURDAY NIGHT AT THE MOVIES
We don't have time any more do we? We are always in a rush, from one place to another. Rarely are we ever just there, where we want to be, we are always heading to a destination. Technology is striving to ensure we can do as much as possible while we are on the move, we can always access emails, the internet, our music, our films. It's all in our pocket. We just don't have time to stop. In today's consumerist society everything is designed, aimed and geared to our convenience. Food is quicker than ever now, how else to you excuse the existence of Rustlers; Subway, which has overtaken McDonalds as the biggest restaurant in the world is nothing if not a factory conveyor belt; we can't be bothered to pull a cork out of a bottle of wine now; We all want things to be convenient to us, we don't want to be put out.
This seems to have extended to our attitude towards film, and more specifically the cinema. Whichever one is nearest, are the showtimes convenient, we can't possibly wait around half an hour for something to start. When planning a night out with friends you wouldn't use just location and opening times as the only criteria would you?
'Fancy a few beers tonight?'
'Sounds good. I fancy a really big one, it's been a tough week Where shall we go?'
'There's that new bar, with the live music. Can't remember what it's called. I hear that the ratio of girls to boys is 4:1'.
'I don't know, it's a bus ride away. A twenty minute bus ride at that'.
'Good point. What about the German beer house? It's meant to be mental in there'.
'Don't be daft, it doesn't open for another hour. What about the The Dog and Duck over the road? I can see it from here'.
'Good idea. It doesn't matter that the beer tastes like bile, the clientele is made up of 3 old men, 1 dog and stuffed parrot'.
'Great. I'll get my best shirt on then we'll go nuts!'
Perhaps it's best to go back in time a bit, to the 'Golden Age'. Going to the cinema was like a trip to the theatre, it was a treat. Films weren't like they are now, there were no movie channels, Lovefilm didn't exist, it wasn't eight new releases every week, a trip to the cinema was a rarity. People dressed up, put on their Sunday best, it was a real night out. Skip a few decades to the 70's and the birth of the Blockbuster. We've all seen footage of opening weekends of Star Wars and Jaws, people queueing round the block. Before the arrival of VHS and home video, this was the only place people could see movies, if they didn't get in while they could, that was it.
Fast forward to the present day and your local multiplex and things could not be more different. The only reason a queue might exist is because the operation of a till-like device proves to be one step too far for the grunting teenagers employed as front of house. Other than the opening weekend of a big film I struggle to remember the last time I was in a full cinema. I recall seeing the latest record breaking Harry Potter film in it's opening weekend (an opening weekend that broke all previous records) in a half full cinema.
So what has changed?
Well movies are so much more freely available now. As well as the movie channels on Sky, terrestrial channels screen films everyday, everyone has a DVD collection, companies like Lovefilm have all but made rental shops redundant, you can even now stream films straight to your TV via the internet and that isn't even considering illegal downloads and piracy. The truth is that films have become a part of everyday life, but not in a good way. In the same way that today's music charts are full of instantly disposable background noise, this week's number 1 inseparable from last week's, the joy to be found in cinema has been lost. It's entertainment but not in it's purest form, it is now seen as a way of passing two hours.
The multiplex treats films as nothing more than a comodity, during the summer months the latest superhero sequel can be found showing on 3 screens, in 2D or 3D while foreign language and independent films struggle for any exposure at all. The tickets are expensive (you can expect to be charged from £15 - £20 in Central London) and all you get is people talking on their mobile phones, crunching loud snacks, rustling sweet wrappers or kicking your seat. To get a drink or a box of popcorn is a remarkably efficient way of doubling the money you've already spent just to get a seat. Is it any wonder that that the joy of a trip to the flicks is subsiding?
The film industry is just as much to blame. If they want us to part with our cash they have to actually think about what films they are making. The financial success of superhero films and bland romantic comedies seem to have narrowed the vision of studios, making them reluctant to take a gamble. There is a place for action films, comic-book adaptations, popcorn flicks and sequels, but the last few years, with Nolan's Batman reboot, Bourne, Inception and Kick-Ass, have taught us that the cinema-going public aren't all completely stupid. Plot, imagination, creative narrative and characterisation are as important as robots, explosions and mutants.
So, what do we need if we are to make going to the cinema special again? Well, we need Hollywood to keep it's side of the bargain and make good films - hopefully with the incredible success of The King's Speech and other Oscar nominees such as The Social Network, Black Swan, 127 Hours and The Kids Are All Right, the studios will be tempted to continue the trend and invest in films of this type rather than rebooting franchises such as Spiderman, which isn't exactly dead. Once we have that in place, we then need to ensure that a trip to the cinema is more than just a way to whittle down a couple of hours on a Sunday afternoon. If going to the cinema becomes a night out or a day out, then the multiplexes will have to realise that their current standards of service or not up to scratch. The films, and more importantly, the punters deserve better.
This is starting to happen. Ventures such as Secret Cinema, Midnight Movies and Jamesons' Cult Film Club are all injecting some much needed theatrics into the act of watching films. Secret Cinema's lavish location set-ups and volunteering actors transport the enthusiastic, fancy-dress wearing spectators into the world of the film they are watching. While watching One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest in an old hospital, a McMurphy passes around tequila shots or fish, depending on where you are in the film. For the recent showing of The Red Shoes they created 1940's Covent Garden with ballet auditions and fully functioning shops. Just describing it will never do it justice, you must experience it for yourself.
Midnight Movies' recent screening of Battle Royale at the Curzon in Soho (as featured on Film 2011 on the BBC) was combined with a school uniform fancy dress theme in the bar beforehand. Jamesons' allowed us to watch the recent Monsters while transforming the Royal College of Surgeons into an 'infected' zone, let us drink Jamesons cocktails before and after and even giving us the treat of a Q&A session with the director Gareth Edwards. All of this for free. YES FOR FREE! At Somerset House every year Film 4 put on a week of outdoor screenings of classic films. Last year I got to watch the fantastic double bill of Let The Right One In and The Lost Boys. All under the stars in Central London as the audience tucked into vino and picnics made up of pork based snacks. You can see films for free during the summer at More London as well, right by the Mayor's office. It's these ideas that are focusing on the spectacle of film and making it an experience, not a diversion.
I appreciate that we can't always watch films in this way and that there is nothing that beats a good old-fashioned trip to the cinema, popcorn and all. There's nothing to stop us going to a nice cinema though is there? For those of us that live in London or just outside, there is no need to put up with the big factory-like multiplexes. The Curzon chain has cinemas dotted around London and all offer something a bit more tranquil and sedated. All the people attending are there for the film, not to spit chewed up paper through straws. They have bars and cafes, not texting teenagers and nachos. The Picturehouse group again have a number of sites, the Ritzy in Brixton is lovely, The Clapham Picturehouse has a nice lively bar, I've heard great things about Screen on the Green in Islington. The Everyman is another with cinemas in Baker Street, Hampstead and other parts of North London. The one screen Electric Cinema in Notting Hill is 100 years old this year and with it's footrests and huge seats, as well as fully stocked bar and hot food (sausage rolls are immense), it's the best place to watch a film. You must also not forget the Prince Charles Cinema in Leicester Square. It shows both new releases and classics, it has film seasons and double bills. A year's membership costs just £10, and once a member tickets can cost as little as £1.50.
On the subject of money, I imagine people think that these independant cinemas are more expensive. The reality however is that all of these places are, at the very most, the same price as Odeon and Sin-e-World. In some instances even cheaper. It's like fancying a burger and discovering that The Gourmet Burger kitchen is cheaper than McDonalds. Why would you get a Big Mac in that instance? A more expensive treat can be found in the Film Clubs held at the Firmdale Hotels in Covent Garden, Soho and Charlotte Street. For £35 you can get to watch the film (ranging from recent releases to classics) and have either a 3 course meal before or afternoon tea with champagne afterwards. It all sounds rather flamboyant but if you consider that a cinema ticket can cost upto £20 in Central London, and if you were to grab a Pizza Express or a Wagamamas afterwards, you reach the same sort of figure.
In 2009 UK cinema admissions were at their highest since 2002, the box office for that year reached a record £1billion and UK independent films are at their most popular in a decade. It's a good time for cinema but it can be even better if we vote with our feet. If the Odeons of this world realise we want more than are giving us, then they will have to wake up to that fact and give us what we want. If they realise the public wants independant releases then they will have to stop showing Pirates of the Carribean 4 in 3D on 4 screens while we have to travel miles to see In Gods and Men.
Get out there and explore the cinema landscape, there's so much to discover and enjoy.
This seems to have extended to our attitude towards film, and more specifically the cinema. Whichever one is nearest, are the showtimes convenient, we can't possibly wait around half an hour for something to start. When planning a night out with friends you wouldn't use just location and opening times as the only criteria would you?
'Fancy a few beers tonight?'
'Sounds good. I fancy a really big one, it's been a tough week Where shall we go?'
'There's that new bar, with the live music. Can't remember what it's called. I hear that the ratio of girls to boys is 4:1'.
'I don't know, it's a bus ride away. A twenty minute bus ride at that'.
'Good point. What about the German beer house? It's meant to be mental in there'.
'Don't be daft, it doesn't open for another hour. What about the The Dog and Duck over the road? I can see it from here'.
'Good idea. It doesn't matter that the beer tastes like bile, the clientele is made up of 3 old men, 1 dog and stuffed parrot'.
'Great. I'll get my best shirt on then we'll go nuts!'
Perhaps it's best to go back in time a bit, to the 'Golden Age'. Going to the cinema was like a trip to the theatre, it was a treat. Films weren't like they are now, there were no movie channels, Lovefilm didn't exist, it wasn't eight new releases every week, a trip to the cinema was a rarity. People dressed up, put on their Sunday best, it was a real night out. Skip a few decades to the 70's and the birth of the Blockbuster. We've all seen footage of opening weekends of Star Wars and Jaws, people queueing round the block. Before the arrival of VHS and home video, this was the only place people could see movies, if they didn't get in while they could, that was it.
Fast forward to the present day and your local multiplex and things could not be more different. The only reason a queue might exist is because the operation of a till-like device proves to be one step too far for the grunting teenagers employed as front of house. Other than the opening weekend of a big film I struggle to remember the last time I was in a full cinema. I recall seeing the latest record breaking Harry Potter film in it's opening weekend (an opening weekend that broke all previous records) in a half full cinema.
So what has changed?
Well movies are so much more freely available now. As well as the movie channels on Sky, terrestrial channels screen films everyday, everyone has a DVD collection, companies like Lovefilm have all but made rental shops redundant, you can even now stream films straight to your TV via the internet and that isn't even considering illegal downloads and piracy. The truth is that films have become a part of everyday life, but not in a good way. In the same way that today's music charts are full of instantly disposable background noise, this week's number 1 inseparable from last week's, the joy to be found in cinema has been lost. It's entertainment but not in it's purest form, it is now seen as a way of passing two hours.
The multiplex treats films as nothing more than a comodity, during the summer months the latest superhero sequel can be found showing on 3 screens, in 2D or 3D while foreign language and independent films struggle for any exposure at all. The tickets are expensive (you can expect to be charged from £15 - £20 in Central London) and all you get is people talking on their mobile phones, crunching loud snacks, rustling sweet wrappers or kicking your seat. To get a drink or a box of popcorn is a remarkably efficient way of doubling the money you've already spent just to get a seat. Is it any wonder that that the joy of a trip to the flicks is subsiding?
The film industry is just as much to blame. If they want us to part with our cash they have to actually think about what films they are making. The financial success of superhero films and bland romantic comedies seem to have narrowed the vision of studios, making them reluctant to take a gamble. There is a place for action films, comic-book adaptations, popcorn flicks and sequels, but the last few years, with Nolan's Batman reboot, Bourne, Inception and Kick-Ass, have taught us that the cinema-going public aren't all completely stupid. Plot, imagination, creative narrative and characterisation are as important as robots, explosions and mutants.
So, what do we need if we are to make going to the cinema special again? Well, we need Hollywood to keep it's side of the bargain and make good films - hopefully with the incredible success of The King's Speech and other Oscar nominees such as The Social Network, Black Swan, 127 Hours and The Kids Are All Right, the studios will be tempted to continue the trend and invest in films of this type rather than rebooting franchises such as Spiderman, which isn't exactly dead. Once we have that in place, we then need to ensure that a trip to the cinema is more than just a way to whittle down a couple of hours on a Sunday afternoon. If going to the cinema becomes a night out or a day out, then the multiplexes will have to realise that their current standards of service or not up to scratch. The films, and more importantly, the punters deserve better.
This is starting to happen. Ventures such as Secret Cinema, Midnight Movies and Jamesons' Cult Film Club are all injecting some much needed theatrics into the act of watching films. Secret Cinema's lavish location set-ups and volunteering actors transport the enthusiastic, fancy-dress wearing spectators into the world of the film they are watching. While watching One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest in an old hospital, a McMurphy passes around tequila shots or fish, depending on where you are in the film. For the recent showing of The Red Shoes they created 1940's Covent Garden with ballet auditions and fully functioning shops. Just describing it will never do it justice, you must experience it for yourself.
Midnight Movies' recent screening of Battle Royale at the Curzon in Soho (as featured on Film 2011 on the BBC) was combined with a school uniform fancy dress theme in the bar beforehand. Jamesons' allowed us to watch the recent Monsters while transforming the Royal College of Surgeons into an 'infected' zone, let us drink Jamesons cocktails before and after and even giving us the treat of a Q&A session with the director Gareth Edwards. All of this for free. YES FOR FREE! At Somerset House every year Film 4 put on a week of outdoor screenings of classic films. Last year I got to watch the fantastic double bill of Let The Right One In and The Lost Boys. All under the stars in Central London as the audience tucked into vino and picnics made up of pork based snacks. You can see films for free during the summer at More London as well, right by the Mayor's office. It's these ideas that are focusing on the spectacle of film and making it an experience, not a diversion.
I appreciate that we can't always watch films in this way and that there is nothing that beats a good old-fashioned trip to the cinema, popcorn and all. There's nothing to stop us going to a nice cinema though is there? For those of us that live in London or just outside, there is no need to put up with the big factory-like multiplexes. The Curzon chain has cinemas dotted around London and all offer something a bit more tranquil and sedated. All the people attending are there for the film, not to spit chewed up paper through straws. They have bars and cafes, not texting teenagers and nachos. The Picturehouse group again have a number of sites, the Ritzy in Brixton is lovely, The Clapham Picturehouse has a nice lively bar, I've heard great things about Screen on the Green in Islington. The Everyman is another with cinemas in Baker Street, Hampstead and other parts of North London. The one screen Electric Cinema in Notting Hill is 100 years old this year and with it's footrests and huge seats, as well as fully stocked bar and hot food (sausage rolls are immense), it's the best place to watch a film. You must also not forget the Prince Charles Cinema in Leicester Square. It shows both new releases and classics, it has film seasons and double bills. A year's membership costs just £10, and once a member tickets can cost as little as £1.50.
On the subject of money, I imagine people think that these independant cinemas are more expensive. The reality however is that all of these places are, at the very most, the same price as Odeon and Sin-e-World. In some instances even cheaper. It's like fancying a burger and discovering that The Gourmet Burger kitchen is cheaper than McDonalds. Why would you get a Big Mac in that instance? A more expensive treat can be found in the Film Clubs held at the Firmdale Hotels in Covent Garden, Soho and Charlotte Street. For £35 you can get to watch the film (ranging from recent releases to classics) and have either a 3 course meal before or afternoon tea with champagne afterwards. It all sounds rather flamboyant but if you consider that a cinema ticket can cost upto £20 in Central London, and if you were to grab a Pizza Express or a Wagamamas afterwards, you reach the same sort of figure.
In 2009 UK cinema admissions were at their highest since 2002, the box office for that year reached a record £1billion and UK independent films are at their most popular in a decade. It's a good time for cinema but it can be even better if we vote with our feet. If the Odeons of this world realise we want more than are giving us, then they will have to wake up to that fact and give us what we want. If they realise the public wants independant releases then they will have to stop showing Pirates of the Carribean 4 in 3D on 4 screens while we have to travel miles to see In Gods and Men.
Get out there and explore the cinema landscape, there's so much to discover and enjoy.
Thursday 10 March 2011
SEX & DRUGS & ROCK & ROLL (2010 - Cert 15)
The musical biopic is one of my least favourite types of film. They tend to be predictable, formulaic and more often than not they are guilty of portraying their subject in a far more positive light than they might deserve. An exercise in nostalgic worship, which might be nice if you're a fan of Ray Charles, but it doesn't make for interesting viewing for any old cinema goer.
Ian Dury isn't someone I know a vast amount about. I know and love some of his music but I certainly wouldn't hold myself out as an expert on his back catalogue and claim him to be one of my idols. However, I have heard enough over the the years, from a good mate of mine, to know that he lived a very interesting life, had a lot to come to terms with and was a hell of a long way from being a conformist. Based on the small amount of knowledge I have, as I popped in the DVD of Sex & Drugs & Rock & Roll, I was confident that there was enough in the tank to ensure that the story of Ian Dury, as told by first time writer Paul Viragh and first time feature director Mat Whitecross, was not going to be the run of mill 'journey' of a musician.
And in all honesty, that assumption was pretty much spot on. The story is cleverly set up as a Dury performance, on stage, reciting his poetry, with brightly coloured, energetic, visual imagery and animated sequences, telling the story of his life, which is then effectively portrayed to us in flashback. The film opens in darkness, with Dury (played by the chameleon Andy Serkis) walking on stage towards us, pausing, before lights flash on and he unleashes a tirade of his rhymes at us. It's a great opening and immediately has us thinking of Dury as a performer, not one of us. This portrayal becomes even more cunning when it's compared to the Dury we see in the dull tones of the flashbacks. Immediately two separate persona's are created, the on-stage Dury and the one who struggles with relationships and has to come to terms with his affliction resulting from polio. Don't be fooled, that last sentence is very much the tone of the film - this is not a bundle of laughs by any stretch of the imagination. It's another of the things I admired about the film - it isn't a vehicle solely to celebrate the life of Dury. It's a portrait of a man, warts and all, at times charming, at times repulsive. It's brave and straight away lifts it above other music biopics.
While we are on the subject of portrayal, I must get on to the performance of Andy Serkis. He obviously made headlines initially as the man behind the digital Gollum in Lord of the Rings, but he has promised a lot since then. His Dury is the moment where he really put his marker down as an acting force to be reckoned with. It's not a full on impersonation of Dury, but it's very close. I've looked at some footage of Dury and Serkis is spot on, on and off stage. The renditions of songs are particularly impressive, Serkis throwing himself into it fully - it could almost be Dury. It isn't just the accuracy of his performance though, it's also the intensity of it. Whenever he is on screen he got a reaction from me, whether I was moved to tears, anger or disgust, he had me convinced. My favourite scene sees Dury speaking to disabled kids at his old school, one second he is teaching them about rhythm, the next he muses on the existence of God. Gripping stuff. Also, when you consider the lengths he went to when striving for accuracy (he stopped using one leg to allow the muscle to reduce so he could authentically echo Dury's polio damaged leg), making Daniel Day-Lewis and Robert De Niro seem like the cast on Hollyoaks, you have a real stand out performance of a tortured soul, coming to terms with a disability, surprisingly absent from the Bafta nominees list.
It isn't just a film about Dury though. The other important character is Baxter, Dury's son, played by Bill Milner (Son of Rambow). Much of the film centres on the relationship between father and son and how they both adapt to one another. At times it's very touching and upsetting, at others it feels slightly laboured and there to act as a device to develop the story. Milner is very good, but at times his scenes feel out of tone to the rest of the film - just padding.
It's good to see some other British actors such as Mackenzie Crook, Noel Clarke and Naomie Harris in such an interesting British production - they all turn in good showings. Ray Winstone is Dury's dad and is his dependable self, although he doesn't have enough of a part to stretch himself and show some flair. Tom Hughes, also seen in Cemetery Junction, is very good as Chaz Jankel and should have a good future ahead of him. I'll look forward to seeing what he has in store next. Toby Jones is the one that really jumps out from the supporting cast as Hargreaves, the nasty teacher at Dury's school. Its true that we always remember the bad guys but Jones loves it and is a real bastard.
Serkis, all make it very watchable. I imagine it's a must see for all Dury fans, but for any fan of well made cinema there are plenty of reasons to be cheerful.
Ian Dury isn't someone I know a vast amount about. I know and love some of his music but I certainly wouldn't hold myself out as an expert on his back catalogue and claim him to be one of my idols. However, I have heard enough over the the years, from a good mate of mine, to know that he lived a very interesting life, had a lot to come to terms with and was a hell of a long way from being a conformist. Based on the small amount of knowledge I have, as I popped in the DVD of Sex & Drugs & Rock & Roll, I was confident that there was enough in the tank to ensure that the story of Ian Dury, as told by first time writer Paul Viragh and first time feature director Mat Whitecross, was not going to be the run of mill 'journey' of a musician.
And in all honesty, that assumption was pretty much spot on. The story is cleverly set up as a Dury performance, on stage, reciting his poetry, with brightly coloured, energetic, visual imagery and animated sequences, telling the story of his life, which is then effectively portrayed to us in flashback. The film opens in darkness, with Dury (played by the chameleon Andy Serkis) walking on stage towards us, pausing, before lights flash on and he unleashes a tirade of his rhymes at us. It's a great opening and immediately has us thinking of Dury as a performer, not one of us. This portrayal becomes even more cunning when it's compared to the Dury we see in the dull tones of the flashbacks. Immediately two separate persona's are created, the on-stage Dury and the one who struggles with relationships and has to come to terms with his affliction resulting from polio. Don't be fooled, that last sentence is very much the tone of the film - this is not a bundle of laughs by any stretch of the imagination. It's another of the things I admired about the film - it isn't a vehicle solely to celebrate the life of Dury. It's a portrait of a man, warts and all, at times charming, at times repulsive. It's brave and straight away lifts it above other music biopics.
While we are on the subject of portrayal, I must get on to the performance of Andy Serkis. He obviously made headlines initially as the man behind the digital Gollum in Lord of the Rings, but he has promised a lot since then. His Dury is the moment where he really put his marker down as an acting force to be reckoned with. It's not a full on impersonation of Dury, but it's very close. I've looked at some footage of Dury and Serkis is spot on, on and off stage. The renditions of songs are particularly impressive, Serkis throwing himself into it fully - it could almost be Dury. It isn't just the accuracy of his performance though, it's also the intensity of it. Whenever he is on screen he got a reaction from me, whether I was moved to tears, anger or disgust, he had me convinced. My favourite scene sees Dury speaking to disabled kids at his old school, one second he is teaching them about rhythm, the next he muses on the existence of God. Gripping stuff. Also, when you consider the lengths he went to when striving for accuracy (he stopped using one leg to allow the muscle to reduce so he could authentically echo Dury's polio damaged leg), making Daniel Day-Lewis and Robert De Niro seem like the cast on Hollyoaks, you have a real stand out performance of a tortured soul, coming to terms with a disability, surprisingly absent from the Bafta nominees list.
It isn't just a film about Dury though. The other important character is Baxter, Dury's son, played by Bill Milner (Son of Rambow). Much of the film centres on the relationship between father and son and how they both adapt to one another. At times it's very touching and upsetting, at others it feels slightly laboured and there to act as a device to develop the story. Milner is very good, but at times his scenes feel out of tone to the rest of the film - just padding.
It's good to see some other British actors such as Mackenzie Crook, Noel Clarke and Naomie Harris in such an interesting British production - they all turn in good showings. Ray Winstone is Dury's dad and is his dependable self, although he doesn't have enough of a part to stretch himself and show some flair. Tom Hughes, also seen in Cemetery Junction, is very good as Chaz Jankel and should have a good future ahead of him. I'll look forward to seeing what he has in store next. Toby Jones is the one that really jumps out from the supporting cast as Hargreaves, the nasty teacher at Dury's school. Its true that we always remember the bad guys but Jones loves it and is a real bastard.
Serkis, all make it very watchable. I imagine it's a must see for all Dury fans, but for any fan of well made cinema there are plenty of reasons to be cheerful.
Monday 7 March 2011
FROZEN (2010 - Cert 15)
I've never been skiing. It's not that I'm against it in any way, it's just that it all seems a bit too much like hard work to me. I believe that a holiday is when I should be relaxing, putting my feet up. Not chucking my self down a mountain on two planks of wood knowing that one wrong move or piece of bad luck could break a bone. I prefer the beach. Anyway, I'm getting off the point, even though I haven't been skiing before, the chairlifts do freak me out a bit. They are high up and the 'safety' bar is more a token-gesture bar. Plus they always look a bit shoddy, what if they break down, I find myself wondering. Stuck in the freezing wilderness on an elevated cushion.
It's that final fear that forms the central idea of this very decent, simple, low-budget horror film. Three friends head up a mountain for a day of skiing, then as the day draws to a close they bribe the lift attendant for one last run just before it shuts down. A contrived plot development later and they are stuck on the lift, lights off, freezing cold knowing that the slope won't open again for another 5 days. That's the set-up, and I won't go into too much detail but what you are effectively left with is Open Water, with two exceptions - the water is frozen and the sharks are wolves.
The director and writer Adam Green has made a couple of horror films prior to this, nothing high profile, but you can tell he s not a complete novice. The film opens with the camera following the moving parts of the chairlift mechanism, clunking along. It's a clever little trick, highlighting the machine that so much trust is put into. He builds the tension nicely, with zero fuss, there's no frills here and he bravely shows facial expressions of others instead of close ups of gore and violence. It could have been the result of budget constraints but using sound and facial expressions gave one particular scene much more impact. He also respects the device of characterisation taking the time to explore how people might react in this situation, blame is apportioned, the characters open up to one another. It's well done and clearly isn't there just to fill gaps between set pieces. Some credit should also go the cast as well. Often with these types of films money is saved on casting and consequently you get some of the most irritating screen performances possible, you actually want them to meet a grisly end. However, Emma Bell (The Walking Dead), Shawn Ashmore (the X-Men films) and Kevin Zegers (Dawn of The Dead - remake) are all perfectly good, not amazing but steady. They make the quieter, more dialogue heavy moments at least bearable, I even managed to feel pangs of sympathy with their plight - not something you can often say of low-budget horror.
The simplicity of Frozen is the main reason it is so watchable. You can easily imagine it happening in reality, it is actually plausible, and it plays on this fear and it has enough unpredictable moments to keep you hooked for the 88 minute running time. A terrifyingly simple premise, executed well, making for an interesting, although far from perfect, chiller that is a pleasing diversion from all of the overly violent torture flicks being churned out on the back of the success of Saw and Hostel. It may even put you off your next trip to the Alps.
It's that final fear that forms the central idea of this very decent, simple, low-budget horror film. Three friends head up a mountain for a day of skiing, then as the day draws to a close they bribe the lift attendant for one last run just before it shuts down. A contrived plot development later and they are stuck on the lift, lights off, freezing cold knowing that the slope won't open again for another 5 days. That's the set-up, and I won't go into too much detail but what you are effectively left with is Open Water, with two exceptions - the water is frozen and the sharks are wolves.
The director and writer Adam Green has made a couple of horror films prior to this, nothing high profile, but you can tell he s not a complete novice. The film opens with the camera following the moving parts of the chairlift mechanism, clunking along. It's a clever little trick, highlighting the machine that so much trust is put into. He builds the tension nicely, with zero fuss, there's no frills here and he bravely shows facial expressions of others instead of close ups of gore and violence. It could have been the result of budget constraints but using sound and facial expressions gave one particular scene much more impact. He also respects the device of characterisation taking the time to explore how people might react in this situation, blame is apportioned, the characters open up to one another. It's well done and clearly isn't there just to fill gaps between set pieces. Some credit should also go the cast as well. Often with these types of films money is saved on casting and consequently you get some of the most irritating screen performances possible, you actually want them to meet a grisly end. However, Emma Bell (The Walking Dead), Shawn Ashmore (the X-Men films) and Kevin Zegers (Dawn of The Dead - remake) are all perfectly good, not amazing but steady. They make the quieter, more dialogue heavy moments at least bearable, I even managed to feel pangs of sympathy with their plight - not something you can often say of low-budget horror.
The simplicity of Frozen is the main reason it is so watchable. You can easily imagine it happening in reality, it is actually plausible, and it plays on this fear and it has enough unpredictable moments to keep you hooked for the 88 minute running time. A terrifyingly simple premise, executed well, making for an interesting, although far from perfect, chiller that is a pleasing diversion from all of the overly violent torture flicks being churned out on the back of the success of Saw and Hostel. It may even put you off your next trip to the Alps.
Saturday 5 March 2011
BURKE AND HARE (2010 - Cert 15)
John Landis' return from a 12 year break from cinema was an event in 2010 that didn't really get as much press as it should have done. A hiatus of over a decade from the man who brought us An American Werewolf in London, Blues Brothers, Trading Places and the affectionately remembered The Three Amigos, should really have been greeted by huge fanfare, but the waters barely rippled.
In many ways, the story of Burke and Hare, is classic Landis. Serial murders in Edinburgh between 1827 - 1831, committed solely for the purpose of selling the corpses to a doctor for research (a historic and brutal version of Cash Converters) is the perfect combination of the darkness of death and the farcical lengths people go to for economic gain, ideally suited to Landis' blackly comic visions.
He gets a good cast on board as well. Burke and Hare themselves are played by Simon Pegg, the film geek's leading man, and Andy Serkis, a brilliant actor with cult status for the choice of some of his roles. They couldn't be a better fit for a film heralding the return of a director held in such high esteem by film buff-dom. Isla Fisher is a good addition as well as the love interest, attractive but goofy and comedic in her own right. Tim Curry and Tom Wilkinson are present and correct as rival doctors trying to beat each other to advances in the medical profession. Christopher Lee has a little cameo, a couple of British TV comedy favourites turn up in Paul Whitehouse and Jessica Hynes. Oh and Ronnie Corbett plays the head of the militia. Remarkable.
So, great director, ludicrously dark yet true story, dependably decent and slightly mental, if unspectacular casting. It has to be a sure-fire black comedy hit.
Perhaps it should have been, but quite frankly it's all a bit of a mess. The story itself rumbles along at a good pace, predictable at times but with enough coming from leftfield to make it interesting. The narrative follows Burke and Hare, the killers, and has them as the 'heroes' of the piece. I liked the fact that we were being asked to side with the bad guys, rather than the usual tale of good vs evil. That isn't the problem though, it's the tone of the film, and more specifically the comedy that I take issue with. There are some nice dark comic touches as our heroes try to become murderers and have varying levels of success. But then Landis resorts to broad slapstick comedy and a whole host of lines that just don't cut the mustard. I did chuckle a few times, but this was mostly to do with Pegg's delivery rather than anything else. He could read the back of a cornflakes box and make it funny. Serkis is annoying, and barely trying, for the vast majority of his time on screen, Curry and Wilkinson are good fun, Fisher does well and is likeable, but the best turn in the film has to go to little Ronnie Corbett. He's not brilliant by any stretch of the imagination, but he is a laugh and is never dull.
It all felt a little diluted...the true events should have given Landis and the writing team plenty to harvest, both in terms of comedy and interesting characters. Instead, the film relies on Simon Pegg's facial expressions and the noise of breaking bones for the majority of it's comedy, rather than the potential in the story of two Irish immigrants and the combination of the business theory of supply and demand and murder. The characters are two-dimensional at best, there solely to fall over or say funny things, which is a shame because the ending is braver than the rest of the film leaves you expecting and it would have had at least a bit of emotional impact if some care was made with creating characters instead of cardboard cut outs. This is made all the more frustrating when you consider that an American Werewolf in London is still one of the finest examples of doing this sort of thing properly. It makes me think it's more to do with laziness rather than anything else.
Massively disappointing as a Landis fan, a Pegg fan and a cinema fan. Worth a look though for Ronnie Corbett, and it's a shame that the best line of the film is used in the trailer.
In many ways, the story of Burke and Hare, is classic Landis. Serial murders in Edinburgh between 1827 - 1831, committed solely for the purpose of selling the corpses to a doctor for research (a historic and brutal version of Cash Converters) is the perfect combination of the darkness of death and the farcical lengths people go to for economic gain, ideally suited to Landis' blackly comic visions.
He gets a good cast on board as well. Burke and Hare themselves are played by Simon Pegg, the film geek's leading man, and Andy Serkis, a brilliant actor with cult status for the choice of some of his roles. They couldn't be a better fit for a film heralding the return of a director held in such high esteem by film buff-dom. Isla Fisher is a good addition as well as the love interest, attractive but goofy and comedic in her own right. Tim Curry and Tom Wilkinson are present and correct as rival doctors trying to beat each other to advances in the medical profession. Christopher Lee has a little cameo, a couple of British TV comedy favourites turn up in Paul Whitehouse and Jessica Hynes. Oh and Ronnie Corbett plays the head of the militia. Remarkable.
So, great director, ludicrously dark yet true story, dependably decent and slightly mental, if unspectacular casting. It has to be a sure-fire black comedy hit.
Perhaps it should have been, but quite frankly it's all a bit of a mess. The story itself rumbles along at a good pace, predictable at times but with enough coming from leftfield to make it interesting. The narrative follows Burke and Hare, the killers, and has them as the 'heroes' of the piece. I liked the fact that we were being asked to side with the bad guys, rather than the usual tale of good vs evil. That isn't the problem though, it's the tone of the film, and more specifically the comedy that I take issue with. There are some nice dark comic touches as our heroes try to become murderers and have varying levels of success. But then Landis resorts to broad slapstick comedy and a whole host of lines that just don't cut the mustard. I did chuckle a few times, but this was mostly to do with Pegg's delivery rather than anything else. He could read the back of a cornflakes box and make it funny. Serkis is annoying, and barely trying, for the vast majority of his time on screen, Curry and Wilkinson are good fun, Fisher does well and is likeable, but the best turn in the film has to go to little Ronnie Corbett. He's not brilliant by any stretch of the imagination, but he is a laugh and is never dull.
It all felt a little diluted...the true events should have given Landis and the writing team plenty to harvest, both in terms of comedy and interesting characters. Instead, the film relies on Simon Pegg's facial expressions and the noise of breaking bones for the majority of it's comedy, rather than the potential in the story of two Irish immigrants and the combination of the business theory of supply and demand and murder. The characters are two-dimensional at best, there solely to fall over or say funny things, which is a shame because the ending is braver than the rest of the film leaves you expecting and it would have had at least a bit of emotional impact if some care was made with creating characters instead of cardboard cut outs. This is made all the more frustrating when you consider that an American Werewolf in London is still one of the finest examples of doing this sort of thing properly. It makes me think it's more to do with laziness rather than anything else.
Massively disappointing as a Landis fan, a Pegg fan and a cinema fan. Worth a look though for Ronnie Corbett, and it's a shame that the best line of the film is used in the trailer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)