APOLLO 18 (2011 - Cert 15)

Right then, here we go again. It's found footage time once more, although this one does have the nice and clever tagline of 'There's a reason we've never gone back to the moon'. It also has the benefit of being set in space, the isolation of being nearly 240,000 miles from home and the claustrophobia of space suits and cramped space vessels. When you think about the fears that can be played and preyed upon with just those premises alone, I'm surprised that we haven't been here sooner.



The set up is the same as with all of these films - the following footage was posted on lunartruth.com, blah, blah, blah. Three men on a top secret trip to the moon, during the Cold War era, to see what the Russians are up to with their own space programme. The film is made up of a combination of handheld cameras and cameras inside the spacecraft, and it all follows their trip up into Space and onto the moon. Little glimpses of the characters are attempted but it all falls flat and quickly falls into the cliche category. But that doesn't matter really does it? The reason we watch these films are for when it all goes tits up, we want the scares, the jumps.

We don't have to wait long for things to get a little bit creepy, although you do have to wait a while for the scares. In fact, I'm still waiting. Through the Russian angle of the plot, our astronauts (well two of them, one is left orbiting the moon in the main craft) hit the surface to set up surveillance equipment so they can monitor the Commies to their heart's content, and it's while they're wandering around that we have to sit through the now usual slow build up of 'occurrences'. What's that in the background? Why is that on the moon? What does that mean? It does admittedly have an air of mystery, but without a real creep factor (like with Blair Witch for example), it is all grows a little tedious very quickly.

Then the proverbial hits the fan. There is a nugget of an interesting and original idea in the actual threat, somewhere in there, but it's executed in a way that we have seen many times before, you can go through the sci-fi horror checklist, many elements of Alien and Event Horizon sticking out the most. In fact, the video game Dead Space, whose success was so reliant on it's nods towards the genre and it's conventions without any real originality, seems as though it contributed one or two ideas here. There are a couple of jumpy moments, which don't really take much to pull off these days, especially with a dark room and a handheld camera, but you can see them coming a mile off. Even with the nice tension-building touch of one of the astronauts being in a pitch black crater with only the use of a camera flash for intermittent moments of light, you know it's coming and it takes the edge away from it.

There is a conspiracy plot in there as well which doesn't fit, and trying to explain something like that in a film that is meant to be tacked together with blocks of footage feels contrived and out of place. The acting by the cast of unknowns is efficient at best, I was never entirely convinced of the characters and because of the format the terror isn't something that is really conveyed through facial expressions and delivery of dialogue, it's more screams in space helmets. They do a fairly average job with what they are given.

As it builds towards the finale I was anticipating a big pay off, the mystery coming together and leaving something with me as the credits roll, just like Blair Witch and the fella standing in the corner, but it never really gets there. This flat ending is pretty much synonymous with the rest of film. It's all made pretty well, it looks polished but for a budget of £5m for this type of film you would expect that. Perhaps the best way to sum it up is to go back to the Russians, more precisely, Russian Dolls - there are a number of layers to the film, all look and seem decent enough and nicely made, but ultimately at the centre of it all, it's empty and not at all satisfying.

Found footage films aren't dead (check out The Troll Hunter), but if film makers aren't going to do anything new or interesting with the idea, then don't bother.

THE LOST BOYS (1987 - Cert 15)

I've been a big fan of the Secret Cinema, you may have seen a couple of my posts talking about them. They transport you inside the film you are about to see with bold set designs, actors and a willingness by the punters to garm up in fancy dress, fully entering into the spirit of it. I had noticed that there was a recent move away from much loved classics, and there was a desire by the organisers to educate rather than entertain. Although I loved The Battle of Algiers, it was a far cry from other events that I had heard of with films like Blade Runner and An American Werewolf in London. The fun seemed to have started to seep out.

Step forward Future Cinema, apparently 'the people who bring you Secret Cinema', and their California double header. Sponsored by the Californian Tourist Board, there were two outdoor screenings on two consecutive days, The Lost Boys and then Top Gun. Part of Canary Wharf was turned into the Santa Carla sea front, with ferris wheel and fun fair. You could have a go at canoeing, there was a army locker room, a briefing room, you could even have a go at a spot of taxidermy. All in all, they did good.

Anyway, the film I opted for was The Lost Boys, the second time I've seen it in the open air after last year's Somerset House double bill with Let The Right One In. It must be said that there are a number of films that I remember from growing up that just haven't stood the test of time at all, they become dated and are never as fun as I remember them being. Exhibit A - Big Trouble in Little China.  The Lost Boys does not fall into this bracket. No way.

It's one of those where everything seemed to fall into place, the stars were aligned. Everyone remembers Kiefer Sutherland's great vampire performance, it launched Corey Haim into the big time, people stood up and took notice of Jason Patric, there was even room for a bit of 80's favourite Corey Feldman, proper thespians Dianne Wiest, Barnard Hughes and Edward Herrmann help to give the film a little more weight, even the remarkably cheesy, dated (and pretty rubbish) theme song Cry Little Sister by Gerard McMann has a charm and somehow fits the film perfectly.

From start to finish it's great fun and entertainment. It scares, the vampire eye's view opening scene still packs a punch, the is a lot more gore than I remember there being, the massacre of some surf dudes have much of the claret than I suspect my younger self could have stomached.There are plenty of jokes in there, Grandpa (Hughes) and the brilliant Frog Brothers (yes, that was my outfit for the event) get the majority. There is even a bit of romance, with the previous winner of cheesiest use of music for a sex scene (the award now taken by Watchmen and it's use of Hallejulah). For this type of film it's got a plot that keeps you guessing to an extent with a good old fashion whodunnit/whoisit element. It also manages to stay on the right side of 80's nostalgia. Although there is cheese (take a look at the band playing at the seafront) it makes you smile rather than cringe. It's all perfectly pitched, taking itself seriously but with a tongue firmly in the cheek.

So it ticks all of the boxes nicely, but viewing it again I noticed something that the film cleverly did, playing to both parents and kids alike. It made parents ask themselves what they thought that their kids were doing when they stayed out all night. Dianne Wiest asks Patric at one point, 'You stay out all night, sleep all day, wear sunglasses in the house', is that not what we all did when we went out clubbing? As someone who did do that, I couldn't help but think that it would be cool if that was how vampires kept their cover. The film also looks at youth subculture and tells the viewer that it's ok to be different, in fact it's bloody cool. No scene better summing it up than the family's first drive through Santa Carla to the Echo and The Bunnymen track People Are Strange.

Is it really nearly 25 years since it came out? Amidst the flood of vampire films that are around at the moment, your Twilights and so on, it could easily sit alongside them. As exciting as when I first saw it, and as current today as it was back then.

ONE DAY (2011 - Cert 12A)

Outdoor film screenings are the thing of the moment. In one September weekend recently, I saw a screening of The Lost Boys (part of  two day event with Top Gun being the following day) on a Saturday in the open air in Canary Wharf and then on the Sunday One Day in Marble Hill Park, put on by Natwest as a thank you for it's customers (apparently the bank made no profit from the event).

It was while huddled up under a blanket, braving the weather and my rear-end fighting numbness induced by the new 'innovative' Bumbox (a cardboard, fold up seat that should see an increase in cases of piles), that I realised that film adaptations of much loved books come under a different set of critical criteria to original films without a history in literature. Especially so when it's a book like One Day. It's one of those that you see every day on the train, there is always someone reading it. If you went into work tomorrow and took a quick show of hands I would guess around half would have read it. Every single one of them would know someone who had read it. I did so recently, as hype gathered about the coming film adaptation, my mum, sister and girlfriend all told me I had to read it before the cinema release. When three women in my life tell me to do something, I'm better off doing it, so I did. And I have to say that I loved it. I'm sure everyone around knows about the structure by now, we visit two characters, Emma and Dexter, on the same day, 15th July over two decades as their lives weave in and out of one another's. David Nicholls' real achievement though is not making any gaps appear despite the obvious holes in time that would arise as you miss out 364 days of every year. There is no over-explaining of what happened over the past 12 months, it all just falls into place and you feel that you've been with them every step of the way. He cleverly manages to have us fill in the gaps on our own, the book just infers and suggests. 

The structure, the real hook of the novel, is ultimately the biggest challenge to the adaptation. Where Nicholls had 400 or so pages to take time and care in giving Dexter and Emma (the two leads) depth and character, a two hour film might get a little cramped or rushed. Nicholls, on screenplay duty as well, sensibly leaves certain parts of the book out. Lone Scherfig, who we know from the very good An Education, does superbly with the material that Nicolls retains, and there is plenty of it. I get the feeling that they had a good time recreating various parts and aspects of the last 20 years. Haircuts and clothes, including some horrendous suits that you can't believe people wore. The book is a great look back at modern history with clever observations at things like the growing market for posh sandwich shops, useless 90's TV and what 'trendy' meant back then. The film pulls this off very well and feels nicely like a late-twentieth century period piece, much more subtly done than what we have become used to (Flashbacks in Friends for example, and the hideous caricature opening in Sex And The City 2). Aside from these moments Scherfig does as she did with An Education, gently efficient.

The tone of the film is a lot more delicate than the book. There is a lot more sardonic wit on the page than on screen, the edge of the characters being taken away slightly in the film. In fact, I didn't really read the book as a love story, it was more about a male meltdown and how many bad choices, men and women, we all make during our lives. The film's focus is definitely as a love story though and I think that is both a cause and a symptom of the toning down of the dark. Having said that, it serves this purpose very well, there are some nice 'lovey' scenes, some very touching moments (the one that got me was a scene with Dexter and his father), and the broad comedy is kept to a minimum, only a couple of moments akin to typical Brit-Rom-Com laughs. Although those moments both appeared in the book, in the film they both felt very out of place, Scherfig playing the subject matter seriously and not for guffaws. If laughs are to be had it's to be on a much more slight level than Bridget Jones. Dialogue and facial expressions rather than slapstick.

All of the press attention in the build up to the release has not actually been about it not being faithful to the book, it's been about Anne Hathaway's attempt at a Yorkshire accent. Having read and heard all of this 'furore' it's impossible to watch the film without thinking about how's she getting on. It must be said that her accent does take a walk around a few places in the UK, never really sure where it wants to land, but to go on about that wouldn't be fair, because her performance is very, very good. It's a big challenge, to both her and Jim Sturgess, to play one character over a twenty year period. Not just in terms of appearance, but also in how previous events in the narrative have had an effect on them, especially when, due to the structure, we aren't party to everything that has happened. Sturgess has been getting the majority of the plaudits, with Hathaway getting slated (solely on the accent - on that subject, there is an argument that for someone who has lived in Yorkshire, Edinburgh and London, the accent might nip about a bit), but she was the one I was more impressed with. Considering that her last attempt at 'serious' was her incredibly irritating role in the slightly irritating Rachel Getting Married, One Day has put her firmly on my map and I'm a little more confident about her being chosen for The Dark Knight Rises. Also, good to also see Rafe Spall, his career trajectory coming along nicely from his beginnings in Shaun of the Dead. He verges on a slightly cartoon performance, and doesn't feel totally consistent with the rest of the film, but that is a small gripe. Ken Stott will be who I remember from the film though as he was the one who delivered the line that was the straw that broke the camel's back, the one that opened the tear ducts.

Now, back to my original point, adaptations getting a rough deal. I enjoyed the film a lot, and I do mean enjoy, and I do mean a lot, but I walked away with the remains of my picnic, slightly disappointed. Why? The only reason is that the film not the book. Much of what I've written above is comparing screen to page, while what I should be doing is comparing One Day to other releases, other films in that genre. When I do, I become much more positive in my overall assessment. If you group it together with other rom-coms it's far superior. The useless Jennifer Anniston vehicles don't come close, even if you look at a more serious rom-com, such as the awful The Holiday, it smashes it out of the park. It's a better film and deserves more than to be thought of in that bracket. It was an attempt at something like An Education, even Never Let Me Go, a 'proper' film, and ultimately it falls slightly short. And there is no shame in that.

Perhaps the right thing for me to do would have been to not read the book before the film, that way I would have watched it as what it is - A film. Let's see if I manage to watch The Hobbit without comparing that to the book....that'll be the test of me turning over a new leaf.

THE SKIN I LIVE IN (2011 - Cert 15)

This film is a rare thing in the current age, a horror film without 'scares'. There's no jumps, no found footage, no gore and no silly masks. That isn't to say though that it didn't scare, unnerve or unsettle. Over a week later, much of it is still haunting me, more so than any Saw or Paranormal Activity.


Antonio Banderas, back taking himself seriously after boosting the pension with Shrek, Spy Kids and Zorro, is Robert Ledgard, famed plastic surgeon. After a nasty car smash scars his wife with horrific burns  he becomes obsessed with developing a synthetic skin more resilient than nature's version that failed his loved one. We meet him in his pristine and idyllic home, nothing out of place at all and nothing out of the ordinary. Except of course for a room where his wife is protected/imprisoned, wearing a protective bodysuit. Ledgard watches here from his bedroom through surveillance equipment, mustering up the courage to go and see her. In terms of plot that's all you're getting. To tell you anymore would give far too much away. Even in the brevity of my synopsis there are things that aren't strictly true, to reveal the ultimate truth would dent you the joy of seeing it all play out.

As I came out of the cinema, my girlfriend said 'I love Pedro Almodovar'. I confessed to having never seen one of his films. She told me I must have done, I told her I really hadn't done. Obviously I was right, I hand't done, but on the evidence of this film, I will certainly now be going through his back catalogue.

It's a beautiful film to look at. There is a clinical appearance to the film, almost sanitised. It's certainly a deliberate and conscious decision by the director, it represents a sort of mirror to Ledgard's personality, a visual allegory. It means that the viewer is to a degree kept at arms length, not involved in the action, a definite spectator - again much like Ledgard himself. The house where the majority of the film is set continues this sterilised atmosphere, nothing seems out of place, perfect but in a Stepford Wives way. not fake, but at the same time definitely not real. When this illusion of perfection is shattered, it heightens the impact, making it all so much more unsettling and disturbing.

Banderas is excellent. It's a monotone performance, but that should not be seen to be a negative. Banderas and Almodovar cleverly give nothing away. The viewer is never really sure whether they should be with him or not, is he a hero, an anti-hero or an out and out baddie. Banderas turns in a performance that is the epitome of keeping cards close to the chest, all is not as it seems, you want it to be as it seems but there is something underneath that could push everything in a different way.

Supporting cast is spearheaded by Elena Anaya who plays the wife. She pulls off a great tormented soul, but her performance becomes all the more impressive as the story unfolds and her character's layers peels away like an onion (yes, it does induce tears) revealing a depth that you just don't expect.

I appreciate that this is a fairly brief review, but I don't really think I can say much more without spoiling the surprises. The film's narrative is thoughtful and intricate, never going where you expect it to, nothing is signposted, the viewer is given the freedom to use their own devices to fill in gaps (not plot holes) and arrive at their own conclusions. Although I pointed out earlier that there aren't any scares, there are a few scenes that are an uncomfortable watch, but these aren't what give the film it's impacting uppercut. It's more the ideas that unsettle, the wallop playing out in my own head rather than on screen. It's easily one of the better releases of this year so don't be put off by the subtitles - pack your glasses and see it. It's top notch.

It'll also make you think twice the next time you are being put under general anaesthetic....

Right, I'm off to order some Almodovar DVDs.