Tron Legacy

There seems to be a rule in Hollywood for cult remakes; the budget is negatively proportional to the magic; as the budget increases the wit and charm found in the original deceases. This film is no different and with a budget of ten times as much as the classic, you can guess how this turns out.

For those who haven’t seen the first one there is a brief summary that explains how Kevin Flynn was able to go into a computer and discover ‘the Grid’ and all the computer programs that inhabited it.  He then goes missing for 20 years until his son Sam Flynn, played by Garrett Hedlund, enters the Grid to find him.

The huge budget that Disney gave the movie was not spent on the story, but on the stunning special effects, which successfully brings the Grid into the 21^st century. It does this with great action scenes that include exciting disc fights and light cycle chases. Along with the visuals there is a great sound track full of 80’s style synth that was written by Daft Punk and might be one of the best bits of the movie. Sadly apart from this, the rest of the film feels incredibly average.

The story is not very engaging to start with and we are left with only the action sequences to appreciate; unfortunately, this simply isn’t enough to distract from the dull and predictable plot. On top of this, with the exception of Olivia Wilde and Michael Sheen, who were both, enjoyable to watch, the rest of the cast was unremarkable. Garrett Hedlund was wooden and unemotional while Jeff Bridges felt all over the place. In pandering to the fans of the first film Kevin Flynn doesn’t seem to have changed in the 20 years he is trapped on the Grid, making his character vary between sensei like Obi Wan and stoned surfer (The Dude). Although his laid back attitude might have worked on a 30-year old man, it doesn’t feel quite right on someone in their 50s who surely must have lived through an awful lot in those long 20 years, so he seems foolish rather than trnedy. There was also a huge problem with the computer animated Jeff Bridges. The programme Clu, which Kevin Flynn creates when he enters the Grid is meant to look like the Jeff Bridges from the 1982 original. However the computer animation was lazily done and although Clu vaguely resembled a young Jeff Bridges, he looks like he has had one too many facelifts, as he appears completely lineless.  All these problems make the film feel like a Miss Universe pageant: it is great to look at, but lacks any real complexity, depth or true heart.

 

Degree: 2:2

Overall the film isn’t necessarily bad, it just isn’t good either. It feels very shallow and can’t recapture the magic of the original film and even those who haven’t seen the first one easily notice this.

(If you are confused about the rating system please click on the ‘About This Blog Page’ which will explain it all)

 

Catfish

Before I start it should be said that this film is better the less you know about it. As soon as you do any research it gives the whole game away; even the title spoils the twist. For this reason this article will be deliberately short and vague so that not too much is revealed. You will just have to trust me.   And when I say spoiler alert, stop reading if you must!

The film is a documentary that follows Nev Shulman as he creates a relationship with a family he meets on the Internet. His friend Henry Joost and his brother Ariel Schulman film the entire thing; Nev develops an email correspondence with an 8 year-old artist called Abby after she paints one of this published photographs. Through emails, phone calls and Facebook Nev soon gets to know the rest of Abby’s family who he jokingly dubs ‘The Facebook Family’. Nev even begins to have some sort of romantic relationship with Abby’s teenage sister Megan. Since this all happens online and over the phone, the whole audience can tell it won’t end well no matter how sweet the veneer. In fact the ending, (spoiler alert)

attempts to turn the film into a thriller that shows the darker side of the Internet and social networking; possibly this film should be shown to children in their personal development classes. That is if the film is an authentic documentary (spoiler over).

There has been a lot of debate about whether this film is a real documentary or just a marketing ploy. At one end of the spectrum the stars claim it is all real while critics claim it is simply a fake, or possibly somewhere in the middle with parts of it being authentic footage while the rest is a dramatisation of real events. I have my own theories, but will keep them to myself since how much you believe in the authenticity of the footage will effect how ‘mind-blowing’ the ending is.The film is well put together and uses a lot of computer imagery and cinematography (Google Maps, Facebook and SatNav) to bind the scenes together, which gives everything a more interactive feel. As well as that the characters Nev, Areil and Henry, are nice enough. They all seem like ordinary guys that don’t mean any harm. What brings the film down for me, however, is the ‘mind-blowing’ ending which severely lacks a ‘boom’. I was waiting for my mind to explode throughout the entire 87 minutes and then upon realising the big climax happened earlier felt a bit put out. It might be that this is a genuine documentary so that the ending does reflect real life and not an adrenaline fueled version of it, but it was still not as shocking as I expected. Giving the filmmakers their due they carefully handled an ending that could have been made into something more shocking and less heartfelt. However, I still wanted my mind blown as I was promised and am disappointed it did not happen.

‘Catfish’ is an interesting documentary, how authentic it might be is questionable, but that is also not that important. However, the ending was not nearly as personally shocking as expected and this disappointment reduces my opinion of the film. My advice, go in blind.

Degree- 2:2

Having been brought up with all the internet horror stories

the end delivered the bare minimum that I expected.

To real enjoy the film avoid all spoilers

(If you are confused about the rating system please click on the ‘About This Blog Page’ which will explain it all)

Monsters

‘Monsters’ was made on a mere budget of $500,00, at least in Hollywood terms.  This has meant that it has relied on good reviews and word of mouth for promotion instead of having any big names attached. This needs to be taken into account when watching the film for otherwise it feels just like another apocalyptic film, but the fact it seems like a normal Hollywood film shows the level of expertise and talent that was put into this sleeper hit.

The film is set the day after Independence Day or more accurately six years after the aliens arrive on Earth. But these are not aliens with a mission to conquer the universe or enslave mankind, but simply very large octopi-like creatures that can walk on land and are as tall as skyscrapers. The world and its leaders have, however, overreacted and contained the creatures to Central America. It is across this abandoned landscape that Andrew Kaulder (Scoot McNairy), a newspaper photographer looking for his big break, must take his boss’s daughter Samantha Wynden (Whitney Able) so that she can get back to her life in America. The premise is unique and handled differently from District 9, which was released last year and will also be inevitably be compared to ‘Monsters’. Unfortunately ‘Monsters’ decided not to go into too much history of what political decisions led to the present day situation, and this little extra detail would have been a nice added touch.

Instead first time director Gareth Edwards wants to concentrate on his two leads and watch how their relationship grows and matures while they are on this crazy journey. It is certainly a risk casting two unknowns, but it paid off with both giving excellent performances, with Able being especially compelling to watch. After seeing the film it came as a shock when to find out that she was originally not meant to be in the film. Edwards wanted his female lead to be plain, or at least as plain as Hollywood would allow, and felt that Able was too attractive when introduced to him by McNairy, her then boyfriend, now husband. However, it became clear that the chemistry between the young couple was just what the film needed and eventually Edwards made the right decision and gave Able to role. She comes across as both humble and kind, but also unhappy with the route her life is taking and desperate to find a change; McNairy expertly plays the disgruntled photographer who would rather be out taking pictures than babysitting this girl. What the actors really should be credited with is that some of the depths of these characters are their own creation since a lot of the script and plot was ad-libbed in order to create an authentic feel. So memorable lines about photographing victims came from the actors themselves rather than a team of writers. It is also a credit to their talent that the lack of a formal script goes by unnoticed. In fact a lot of the low budget factors, such as using lots of local extras, only one camera and very little CGI, is almost unnoticeable.

Despite what the trailers imply there is little violence or gore in the film. Even scenes after creature attacks are delicately handled with more implied than shown. Edwards seems to have learnt quickly that the audiences have better imaginations than what is usually put on the screen. Instead he fills the screen with beautiful shots of Mexican jungles and mountains that almost make you want to join the traveling pair, if it wasn’t for the huge creatures that they are trying to avoid. Saying all this, it would have been nice to have a few more scenes that kept you on the edge of your seat if nothing more than to simply heighten the sense of danger.

Overall this is a great film with only a few minor errors that stop it from being a perfect film. The premise is fantastic and is well supported by its two leads that do an amazing job. At the helm is Edwards who takes the control like it’s his 5^th film, not his first, and he thoroughly deserves the BIFA (British Independent Film Association) he recently won. If this film does need word of mouth to succeed I will happily lend my voice to the chorus of others who are speaking its praise.

Degree- 2:1

A great film that must be seen by everyone. Great concept, great cast

and a film that deserves recognition.

(If you are confused about the rating system please click on the ‘About This Blog Page’ which will explain it all)

Let Me In

Frankly, I am sick of reading reviews that simply compare Tomas Alferdson’s Swedish film ‘Let The Right One In’ to Matt Reeves remake; more often than not these reviews find Reeves’ version wanting. Well here is an opinion that lets the film stand alone and judges it on its own merit.

This is the first project of recently resurrected, legendary horror studio Hammer and it certainly lives up to their old 50s classics like ‘Dracula’ and ‘The Curse of Frankenstein’. The story revolves around Owen (Kodi Smith-Mcphee) who lives in Los Alamos, New Mexico in 1983. Owen is extremely lonely; his parents are getting a divorce so his father is not around and his mum is in a constant state of either being drunk or anxious. To add to his woes, at school he is mercilessly picked on by three boys who wedgie him and refer to him as a girl. This isolation leaves Owen both incredibly angry, slightly troubled and also very curious in the world around him that he feels separate from, so he is the first person to notice how the girl, who has recently moved in with a man who can only be her father, walks through the snow with no shoes on. This strange girl is Abby (Chloe Mortez) and we quickly find out, though Owen is left in the dark, that she is a vampire-hence has no need for things like shoes.

Chloe Mortez’s vampire in this film is, in my opinion, one of the best re-imaginings to date of the classic concept.  As well as having the mystical elements such as being allergic to sunlight, surviving on blood and having to be invited into houses, Abby also acts like a realistic predator. Gone is the glamour and moody looks of Edward Cullen – compared with Abby he seems like neutered dog. She is fast, strong, becomes feral at the sight of blood and has no problem killing innocent people to satisfy her hunger, but hides this strength behind her fragile girl like appearance, making her all the more dangerous. It is strangely refreshing to see a portrayal of vampires that reflects what they would be like in reality. All the modern renovations of the myth have diluted the original horror that they are meant to install, but Abby is a return to the original roots. Blood sucking creatures that prey on humans are not meant to be glamorous or sexy, they should be terrifying; Abby is certainly terrifying and one of the best things about this film.

Both kids are absolutely fantastic in the film and give high caliber performances. They both handle the tough subject matter exceptionally well, but that shouldn’t really be too surprising when you look at their pedigrees: Mortez was Hit-Girl in comic book film ‘Kick Ass’ while Smith-Mcphee played the boy (that was the characters name, there is no problem with my memory) in post-apocalyptic film ‘The Road’. Neither of these films are exactly light and fluffy, but I think ‘Let Me In’ certainly pushed both a bit more out of their comfort zone, though it is difficult to say who handled it better.  Mortez is able to appear both innocent and vulnerable, yet also wise and jaded at the same time, a feat that many actors with decades more experience cannot pull off. Smith-Mcphee is also exceptional playing the full spectrum of emotion, from anger to fear, delight to despair. In the end there is nothing to fault either one of these actors and both need to be commended to the highest regard for their performances.

Now finally we get to the real crux of the film, the bit that really made it for me was the haunting and touching moments that were found throughout the film; little scenes that would be sweet if not for the sinister undertones. There is a great amount of chemistry between Abby and Owen and the relationship is extremely sweet; both are very lonely and unable to connect with people and this draws them together. But the blood beneath it mars all of their relationship and this is never made more clearly than in a scene where Abby, fresh from a kill, hugs Owen and he hugs her back while her hands are still dripping with blood. This might all seem rather chilling to the audience, but Owen is in love with Abby and sees past all the violence, which is sweet, albeit in a very strange sort of way. What is truly distressing is the realisation that Abby has done this before and Owen is no more special to her than any of the other loners she has attracted. She appears to have been playing the same game for centuries so Owen really never had a chance;this is probably the most distressing part of the entire film.

As a director Matt Reeves has done an excellent job with the film. It is true that many scenes are a shot for shot copy of the original version (at least if all the other critics are to be believed), but there are some of his ideas in there. The car crash scene is ingeniously filmed from within the car itself; a stunning piece of cinematography. There are other little things that Reeves has done within the film that deserved to be noticed, such as consistently hiding the faces of Owen’s parents to add to the feeling of his loneliness. There are also a lot of little extra 80s details, such as a rubix cube and also a televised speech by Regan, which adds a tiny bit more detail to the overall appearance of the film.

Overall this is a very good film with a strong story, cast and director. I think it is a shame that critics are not looking at it as a film in its own right, but instead comparing it to the original. I can’t do that and believe that anyone who wants to see an amazing horror film or an amazing vampire film should go and see this while they still can.

Degree- 2:1

Although it might not be as good as the original it certainly

is an excellent film when taken alone. For those

who want to go back to the old style of vampires here

is something they must see.

(If you are confused about the rating system please click on the ‘About This Blog Page’ which will explain it all)

The American

George Clooney is one of the most recognisable faces in American cinema, with good reason; as director Anton Corbijn has said ‘he can say a lot without a script’ so it comes as no surprise that he was the first choice to play the only American character in this European style film ‘The American’.  It is a shame that Clooney’s magic touch, which has gained many award nominations in the past (Michael Clayton, Up In The Air), cannot give more ‘je ne sais quoi’ to this beautiful, but empty film.

The story is very basic with Clooney playing an unnamed gun mechanic who customises weapons for assassins until he is forced to hide after he becomes a target. He stays in Castel De Monte, working away on another assignment, whilst avoiding the locals, all except the prostitute Clara (Violante Placido); he first visits her out of loneliness, but then falls in love with her.  With such a basic plotline you hope that there are some extra story arcs, but this is not the case; the pace of the film drags out everything mentioned to happen over 103 minutes. When something unexpected does happen, Corbijin handles it with quick, precise expertise, which is a nice change from other Hollywood films where the guns battles and chase scenes last over 20 minutes. Saying that it would also have been nice for the action sequences to have had a bit more to them as they would have broken up the film’s laboured pace.

Consequently, without the distraction of too many action sequences, there is plenty of time for detailed characterisation, but Corbijn neglects to do this choosing instead to keep the character a mystery. We are not told anything about his past, so he is completely unrelatable and uninvolving. What is worse is that the protagonist is asking for forgiveness for his past, from both the audience and those around him, but he does nothing that can be considered redeeming. We are never really supporting him and because of this we lose interest in him and also the film.

With all this in mind there are some good things in this film that go some way to make up for the long rant above. Corbijn has used his photographic eye to create some absolutely beautiful shots; the countryside of Italy has never looked this idyllic. Using plenty of wide landscape footage and fantastic shots of the architecture creates a sense of openness and emptiness that reflects the loneliness of Clooney’s character. Both Clooney and his co-star Placido have a real chemistry that can be felt on screen. The sex scene is especially intense, with Clooney revealing more usual (this might be reason itself to see the film for some viewers) and there is tangible passion between the stars. When asked about that scene in a chat we had with him, director said that he tried to film ‘… it in a way that you feel sexuality rather than seeing it, which was important because a lot of sex scenes usually don’t feel sexual, you see everything, but it is not sexual.’

Corbijn also uses atmospheric techniques to great effect making many scenes, even ones with Clooney alone in a room, incredibly tense as he ‘can carry that [tension] and keep you interested, his body language was really good.’ We never know when someone will jump out to attack him and this keeps the audience wary of the silences. Although the music helps add to the tension, it is the silences that really make you sit up in your seat. Corbijn plays around with the sound very effectively, knowing exactly when to have a huge crescendo and when it is more appropriate to have nothing at all.

Saying all this the looks and the tension are not enough to hold ones interest throughout the entire film.  It is sad, but it seems that Corbijn hasn’t quite been able to get away from his photographic origins and create something that stood up to his last film ‘Control’. This will likely come as no surprise to him since he admitted to us ‘I know that I can’t top Control in the critical sense, the recognition was so immense it is just something you can’t aim for.’ What made  ‘Control’ was that Corbijn effectively balanced both aesthetics and story; sadly this time around he only seems to have concentrated on the former. Though it is highly doubtful this criticism will phase him since his philosophy is ‘If people hate the film I am sure for anyone that is hard to take because you work so long on the project… [but] you make a movie that you want to make and you have to let it go and see how people react.’

Degree- 3rd

A film that looks beautiful, but lacks any real substance,

characterisation or story telling.

 

(If you are confused about the rating system please click on the ‘About This Blog Page’ which will explain it all)

The Kids Are All Right

The film plays out like a sperm donor’s worst nightmare: he tries to make a quick $60 and 18 years later he gets a child knocking on his door saying they share the same DNA. Surely this can’t be allowed? If this is what leaves you pondering when you leave the cinema than you will have missed the entire point of the film. ‘The Kids Are All Right’ is as much about the laws of sperm donorship as ‘Juno’ is about teen pregnancy or ‘The Social Network’ is about Facebook, they are all just surface plot devices that allow characterisation to occur. In fact ‘The Kids Are All Right’ is not about sperm donors or LGBT rights to parenthood, but simply about family dynamics and all kinds of people’s relationships with each other.

The film follows one summer in the life of this unconventional family where Joni (Mia Waskikowska) has just finished high school and will be heading off to college, much to the delight of her two mums Nic and Jules (Annette Bening and Julianne Moore).  While all this is going on Joni’s half brother (same sperm donor different mother) Laser (Josh Hutcherson) is hanging out with the wrong crowd since he lacks a suitable male role model. Laser craves this older male company: you’d be right in thinking that sounds pretty gay since his mothers also incorrectly think so.  Nevertheless, he convinces Joni to get in contact with their sperm donor father who turns out to be the organic restaurateur and playboy Paul (Mark Ruffalo), an embodiment of male energy with his rugged beard and pristine motorbike.

The first meeting between sperm donor and offspring is painfully awkward and that is the true charm of the film; this incredibly uncomfortable chemistry is to be expected from this incredibly unusual situation and none of the characters have any idea what is meant to be happening. This feel of realism is in every scene, from the interrupted ‘relations’ in the bedroom to the singing at the table and talking about the inauthentic feel of lesbian porn; these scenes feel as if they are only slightly enhanced versions of real family conversations (or is my family just very weird?). On top of this no character is flawless or likable all the time and each one adds to the drama that goes on that summer, drama that pushes everyone to his or her limits.  Again, the film perfectly reflects normal human relationships very accurately. The original script is rumoured to have been a lot darker, with the Paul character being portrayed as a manipulative, scheming guy who wanted to break up the family on purpose rather than doing it by accident. In the final version he is as out of his depth with the situation as any of them, and he turns out to be very sweet on some occasions as he tries to bond with the tight nit family. For me the change to a lighter feel was a good move by Cholodenko (the director) as diffusing the blame means many characters are at fault and this adds depth and reality to the story. It goes to show the difficulty of romance and staying madly in love when life and hardship gets in the way. It is also a nice to change to have flawed protagonists, no matter what their gender or sexuality might be.

In between all the drama there are some very sweet and touching moments where Nic and Jules are very sweet together and are like any straight married couple. They fight with both each other and their kids, but underneath it all there is love and this creates the crucial family chemistry.  Since the story is meant to be just one short part of the family’s long time together there are a lot of story arcs that are left unresolved when the credits start rolling and this personally annoyed me and will also annoy some other members of the audience. I understand that it also makes it seem as if the life is continuing after the film has ended, but to me it felt as if they had created lots of story arcs and never got round to finishing them. This is, however a very light criticism that does not at all mar the rest of the film, which is light, interesting, and overall real.

 

2:1 Nothing ground breaking here, but an enjoyable depiction of a new type of modern family.

(If you are confused about the rating system please click on the ‘About This Blog Page’ which will explain it all)

 

 

Burke and Hare

reviewed by guest lecturer Will Tooke

When I was about 13, I went on a school trip to London. We did the usual sights –the Science Museum and a West End show, the then new Millennium Wheel (wow I feel old).  But I remember none of those things. What really stuck with me was the London Dungeon’s realistic recreation of the Jack the Ripper murders.  It was, I suppose, pretty unsuitable for kids: latex prostitutes scattered over the plaster cobbles of fake Whitechapel, rubber intestines strewn from gaping red abdominal cavities.  And the thing is, I wasn’t actually scared by all the gore. I wasn’t a squeamish kid, and I love a good gore fest if it’s done well. (Check out Peter Jackson’s riotous 1993 zom-com  Braindead) If not disgust, then what? It just all felt uncomfortably distasteful, even though the scenes before me then recreated events that occurred over a century previously.

I was worried then that Burke and Hare would be similarly opportunistic, it’s a pretty gory story about two evil men who line their pockets by killing the unsuspecting inhabitants of 1820s Edinburgh, to sell off their corpses to unscrupulous medical schools, where they were dissected for medical students and the curious public alike.  It would be all too easy for a film to be a modern version of such a grim spectacle, peddling the punters lopped up stiffs for lowbrow entertainment.

I realize already having dismissed the London Dungeon as distasteful, applauding Burke and Hare’s humour may seem like I’m having my cake and eating it. But if done seriously, such a film would be just nasty.  American TV movies seem to love making blandly serious biopics about more recent serial murderers, and why anyone would want to sit through them? What makes Burke and Hare palatable is the streak of black humour that runs thicker than blood throughout, owing more perhaps to Monty Python than to reality. It’s a pretty difficult line to walk, and make no mistake that in this film bones break, arteries squirt, and organs splatter, but somehow it gets away with it.

Firstly, it’s directed by American John Landis, who helmed such greats as An American Werewolf in London and The Blues Brothers, as well as the video to Michael Jackson’s Thriller, and his understanding of horror and comedy show are clearly visible.  Piers Ashworth and Nick Moorcroft’s script has some great dialogue and although they rightly take liberties with what actually happened (because you should never let the truth get in the way of a good story), a lot of the plot remains fairly true to reality. It may not be so authentic in terms of story, but in terms of set the film impresses in its recreation of the slums of the pre-industrial 19^th century Scotland, realized in shades of grimey gray and excrement brown, inhabited by dour, whiskery faces with dirty teeth. You know, a lot like Scotland today.

Also to the film’s strength is the excellent cast. The end credits are very much a who’s who of great British character actors: Christopher Lee, David Schofield, Tom Wilkinson, Jenny Agutter, Hugh Bonneville, Tim Curry (Dr Frank-N-Furter himself, lest we forget) and an almost unrecognisable Bill Bailey are all present, but the real stars of the show are undoubtedly Andy Serkis and Simon Pegg in their roles as the eponymous body snatchers. Serkis, whose ability as a great physical performer is indisputable after he brought Gollum to life in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, excels as the darker, more Machiavellian Hare, and Simon Pegg nicely contrast this with his weaker willed, more naïve Burke who lets greed get the better of him.  Whereas in my last review of RED I complained that jam packing the cast full of stars was distracting and felt simply like a way to generate buzz about a not very good film, here you get the impression that they actually wanted to do the movie because its clear that they all had a lot of fun making it. Landis even finds the time to fulfil the wishes of millions by bumping off snobby film director Michael Winner, more recently known for those awful ‘calm down dear’ insurance ads. It’s just a shame they couldn’t have found time to jab a stiletto into the ample gut of the Go Compare opera singer…  Amongst the supporting cast, the diminutive Ronnie Corbett stands out, very nearly stealing the show as Captain McLintock, the bumbling leader of the Edinburgh militia who nevertheless manages to capture Burke and Hare, evoking Shakespeare’s slapstick guardsmen Dogsberry and Verges from Much Ado About Nothing.

Shakespeare is actually an appropriate cultural comparison to make- the crushing inevitability of a less than happy ending, and the ambition for money and power corrupting conscience that both occur in Burke and Hare are equally present in much of Shakespeare’s best work – so too of course, was a sense of humour and a healthy smattering of blood of guts. If you ever struggled imagining what that famous description of Macbeth’s battlefield victim being ‘unseamed from the nave to the chops’ would actually look like, then rest assured that Burke and Hare will leave you in know doubt.

Macbeth, funnily enough, is also where the film itself becomes a little undone – a subplot about Burke deciding to finance an all female production of the Scottish Play just to get into the lacy knickers of aspiring actress Ginny (Isla Fisher) drags a little, and just isn’t as funny as it could have been. Small qualms aside, Burke and Hare is genuinely entertaining, and at 91 minutes doesn’t overstay its welcome, somehow managing to be a bright and breezy romp about, uh, period serial killers.  Perhaps then Fred and Rose West: The Musical could work, just not for another few hundred years.

2.1 – Not at all like what some reviews would have you believe,

Burke and Hare is a delicious slice of macabre comedy that definitely won’t

be to everyone’s taste, but has a lot to like. Bloody good fun.

(If you are confused about the rating system please click on the ‘About This Blog Page’ which will explain it all)

Easy A

There are very few chick-flicks that people will openly admit to liking; often people probe others into making the admission first for films like ‘Mean Girls’ and ‘Clueless’. Well here is a film that I, and I am sure many others, will admit to liking. It has everything you want from a good, enjoyable film; wit, charm, sex appeal, emotion and most importantly a real insight into what is happening in modern day culture.

Emma Stone is the lead, playing Olive Penderhast who matches her flaming red hair with equally tense wit and intelligence. This is not another Cady Heron or Cher Horowitz (the classic Chick Flick heroines) , but a unique character who is both clever and attractive, but also very funny and quirky. Even though Olive has all this going for her she, rather surprisingly, is a nobody in high school until a false rumor of her losing her virginity to a college student puts her on the social map. The lie grows bigger and takes on a life of its own when Olive decides to embrace this new reputation, but also to use it to give street cred/man points to the geeks at her school. Here is the story of a girl who can’t say no, but not in the way we might be more familiar with. This story is made more interesting because although it might follow the usual ups and downs of the genre the high the Olive rides is not the high of popularity, but of notoriety; there is a huge difference between the two.

It is here that the film dissects and analyses modern culture and goes into how sex sells. Olive is shot into the spot light due to her sexual escapades and this mimics many modern day celebrities; stars like Lady Gaga, Megan Fox and Collin Farrell have become as famous for their obvious sexuality as they have for their talents and none of us wonder what having this sort of reputation might be like for them. Here we see the downside of a sexual reputation that quite a few people strive for or just brush aside as if it is something normal. However, Olive feels isolated and unwanted because no one wants her for anything, but her reputation and this begins to really affect her.

But the film doesn’t just concentrate on sex; it also looks at many different topics that appear in across a range of different sub groups. We look at the bullying of LGBT teenagers in high school, which feels particularly relevant after the recent series of gay teen related suicides in the States. There are also scenes demonstrating the ridiculously militant attitudes of the far right religious groups as well as the poor attitudes of the American public (state) school system. By looking at all these various issues, the film feels both interesting and relevant to its primary audience, but also interesting and informative to those who might be a little out of the loop.

The entire cast is also great, I don’t think there is a single weak performance, but none stand out more than Emma Stone. Before this she was best known for her supporting role in ‘Super Bad’, but she really manages to show off her skills as a lead with her great comic timing so every line is delivered expertly. The supporting cast is also fantastic; Amanda Bynes, who has come back from her short break from acting, was delightfully horrible as the plastic lead ‘Jesus-freak’ Marianne; similarly, Dan Bryd (from Cougar Town) is hilarious as the victimized gay guy. The adult cast also have fantastic moments with Stanley Tucci and Patricia Clarkson making the entire audience laugh out aloud as Olive’s crazily liberal parents.

In fact the reason for all these great performances was because the script was very clever and witty, so everyone had a great line or two. The conversation flows like an extended episode of ‘The Gilmore Girls’. Some might find the literary references and pop culture puns a bit pretentious, but for me it was the perfect balance of highbrow humour and obvious physical comedy.

Overall the film is a great thing to see with just about anyone. It still has some of the same flaws of all other chick-flick, but it misses out most of them and makes up for the rest. This is a movie that will lighten up a dull and dark evening and will be watched at least once a year when released on DVD.

Degree- 2:1. This film feels like it taps into the zeitgeist,

at least as much as a chick-flick can. Funny, smart and warm; it has everything.

(If you are confused about the rating system please click on the ‘About This Blog Page’ which will explain it all)

 

R.E.D

reviewed by guest lecturer Will Tooke

Another month brings out another comic book adaption. The playful, immersive odyssey of Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World and the subversive, ultra violent thrill ride of Kick-Ass are still fresh in my mind, I went to see RED with high hopes – after all, with an incredible cast of Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, John Malkovich and your Grans favourite, Helen Mirren, what could possibly go wrong? Err, well, quite a lot actually.

Based on the DC comic written by Warren Ellis and the unfortunately named Cully Hamner, this movie version of RED is similar in name only. A cursory Google (I hadn’t heard of RED before either…) revealed that the scriptwriters had changed quite a bit. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a purist – one of the greatest things about good movie adaptation of novels or books is how the screenwriter handles the source material. Think of 2001s About A Boy based on Nick Hornby’s novel. Gone – thank God – is the heavy handed, zeitgeisty sub-plot to do with Kurt Kobain’s death, a reason why it stands as an example where the film is better than the book. Of course, film adaptations don’t always work out for the best – 2009s Watchmen suffered terribly from an overlong script, and the fact that for some reason it never quite managed to live up to the spirit of the dystopian epic that is Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’ 1986 graphic novel. Yes, screenwriting – particularly adapting works – is a difficult game indeed, one that demands subtlety in approach if not content.

The fact then that screenwriters Jon and Erich Hoeber take great big blundering axe chops to the original is a bad sign. Bruce Willis’ character, ex-CIA agent Frank Moses, survives from the original lineup. The rest are all new additions. Whereas the comic is apparently a darker, straighter story of murky political intrigue and shady secret service dealings, on celluloid RED is a much lighter, family friendly affair. It is, after all a 12 A, and I can’t help wonder if somewhere in the ether floats a grittier, original script, more faithful to the original, before the studio talked it down from an 18 or a 15 to a 12 certificate. It’s a real shame actually, because the core idea is a good one – old spooks come out of retirement to kick some butt after someone or other tries to have them killed. The cheap and easy way to make this family friendly of course is to a) have curiously bloodless fight scenes and b) add some humour.

Oh sweet Jesus, the humour.

In a big loud dumb action movies, there is nothing wrong with a few jokes. Brucie’s own Die Hard quadrilogy is the stronger for them, and cheesy jokes and lazy innuendo pretty much substituted plot for much of Roger Moore’s stint as Bond. But in RED, the cheesy jokes are ladled on like fondue. And it just gets incredibly annoying, right up to a silly pre-credits scene that sees Brucie wheeling John Malkovich through a Moldovan minefield in a wheelbarrow, whilst the latter clutches a nuclear bomb. Typing that out, it sounds pretty funny, like something out of under rated Cold War farce Top Secret! (Seriously, you must see it before you die), but after a few hours of cutesy posturing, my sense of humour failure was borderline terminal.

And even if the awful jokes had been exorcised from RED, I’m not so sure it’d have worked, either. The plot has more flabby twists than Ann Widdecombe’s routines on Strictly Come Dancing: to the extent that it’s unforgivably hard to follow, which is why I haven’t mentioned what happens so much. ‘So wait, now that guy isn’t a baddie?’ one little boy sat near me in the cinema said out loud, to no one in particular. His guess is as good as mine, frankly.  The story circles around something about the covering up of something bad that the now Vice President of the United States (perhaps?) did in Guatemala in 1981 whilst he was in the army. Now bearing in mind said V.P is played by Nip Tuck’s Julian McMahon, this is particularly hard to swallow seeing as McMahon would have been 13 in 1981. Yup, that particular plot hole bugged me so much, I looked up an actor’s actual birthday, just to give me something else to complain about.

I suppose I should provide a bit of a balance by saying that parts of the film are OK – the sight of Helen Mirren firing a huge machine is funny for a bit, and the whole thing is filmed well, each shot framed like a comic book pane. Bruce Willis does his trusty trademark ‘McClane smirk’ – the same facial expression since the good old days of Die Hard, back when Brucey had hair. The same smirk Brucey has done in pretty much every film he’s been in since 1986. If Bella Lugosi was cinema’s Man of a Thousand Faces, then Willis has become cinema’s Man of Just One Smirk. I’m being harsh on Brucey, he does the hand-to-hand combat fights very well, and as a protagonist he’s hard not to like. It’s just I can’t remember the last time he was truly stretched in a role. Perhaps in The Sixth Sense? Which was also the last time M. Night Shyamalan made a decent film. And that was a long, long time ago. In any case, the few good points don’t make up for the whole – in the same way that the excellent German motorway system doesn’t excuse the regime that created them.

I suppose the biggest crime is that this is perhaps the greatest example of recent cinema of a truly brilliant cast who are truly wasted. In the opening credits, there is literally not one actors name that popped up that I didn’t recognize and who isn’t good. Alongside the main four stars are Brian Cox, Karl Urban – two veterans of the Bourne Trilogy, as well as James Remar from TVs Dexter, Mary-Louise Parker from Weeds, Richard Dreyfuss, and the 93 year old Ernest Borgnine. I can only presume they were very well paid or just don’t care anymore.

Degree-2.2 If you like your films with lots bullets that pass in slow motion making a

WOOOSH noise, explosions that seemingly compete with plot holes

to see which one can be the biggest, then you’ll love this.  Otherwise you should probably

just stay away.

It narrowly escaped a third solely because Helen Mirren fires a big loud machine gun.

(If you are confused about the rating system please click on the ‘About This Blog Page’ which will explain it all)

 

Despicable Me

 

Animated films always seem to fit into two different camps; either they are awful cash cows (A Shark’s Tale, Shrek 3) or they are true labours of love (Toy Story 3, Shrek). It has become a rare find to watch an animated children’s film that takes the middle road, but ‘Despicable Me’ is it. Not revolutionary, but not something that has been quickly made to fill a gap in schedules.

‘Despicable Me’, like Pixar’s ‘The Incredibles’, is set in a comic-book like setting where villains exist, but strangely there was no caped crusader or masked vigilante in sight. In fact being a villain is it’s own profession with paid minions and a Bank of Evil to get loans from. Gru, voiced by Steve Carrell, is not the sort of villain that you would send Jack Bauer after; styled like a French cartoon character his most evil acts seem to be stealing monuments from Vegas or bursting children’s balloons. Saying this his big plot of the century is to steal the moon and then sell it back for fame and fortune and to help him with this he has the great inventor, cockneyDr Nefario, expertly voicedy Russell Brand. And of course he also has his army of yellow, worm like minions. These numeroud minions remind me of the game Lemmings – they act as very effective comic relief. With all the ‘Looney Tune’ like physical gags as well as cute voice work and costumes the minions are easily the second best part of the film, with the greatest part being the orphans Margo, Edith and Agnes. These 3 girls provide the heart of the film, as they are all so sweet together with Gru that they create the warmest moments that will melt your heart.

Outside of this, Gru-orphans dynamic the film ends up being pretty ‘run-of-the-mill’, which makes it rather dull at times. The supporting cast of Jason Segel and Julie Andrews were very good, but the story and script was just not complex nor mature enough. You may accuse me of being harsh given that this is a kids’ film, but many great movies for children have worked around this and managed to entertain both adults and children equally. There are a quite a lot of chuckles with some generally laugh out loud moments.  The 3D was also used exceptionally well. In fact it might have been the best use of 3D I have seen yet(apologies to James Cameron) but even with all this the whole production felt very middle ground. There was no new way of looking at the genre or the story or the characters. Maybe if it had come out 10 or so years ago it would have seemed slightly more original and impressive, but unfortunately with all the high caliber animation movie goers see at the moment, being adequate just isn’t good enough. That is not to say you should give this film a miss, you certainly should go and see it, but don’t expect too much from it. You will leave the cinema smiling, but will also forget the film as soon as that smile fades.

Degree: 2:2- a film with a lot of heart, if not much else, but worth seeing just for that.

(If you are confused about the rating system please click on the ‘About This Blog Page’ which will explain it all)