150W: X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Short reviews for clear and concise verdicts on a broad range of films...

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Dir. Gavin Hood/2009)

We know this story. Indeed, considering X2 resolved Wolverine’s history (throwing his dog-tags away), you’d think another re-tread is unnecessary. But we know nothing of his brother, Sabretooth, nor his alleyway fight with metal-tipped, pack-of-cards-throwing, Gambit. Fighting in both world wars and the American civil war, clawed-beast Wolverine has tried to set up a home, but his animalistic past drags him back to fighting. Unfortunately, this single film has left the series in tatters. Relying on mutant teams working together (akin to all previous X-Men films), it feels tired and repetitive – indeed, even the villain remains the same as X2 in William Stryker. Climaxing with a chaotic finale, as Sabretooth and Wolverine temporarily put aside their differences. They fight a super-mutant, Deadpool, who harnesses all the powers – surely he can re-grow body parts? Excessive CGI and flat characterisation makes the origin of Wolverine the dullest affair yet – a real shame.

Rating: 3/10

The Human Centipede I: First Sequence (Tom Six, 2009)

"I'll explain this spectacular operation only once"

Introduction

Two films which have garnered huge attention in pop-culture are Tom Six’s ever-increasing-in-length The Human Centipede series (The Human Centipede III (Final Sequence) is in production). Either you assign yourself to a camp of horrified film-fans; How can a film like this be made? What an offensive and deeply unsettling idea! Etc. The second option is a camp whereby you look to the films as a strange anomaly – equally intrigued and disgusted by the ideas, but interested nevertheless. Or you are in the third camp whereby this type of B-Movie, sub-standard, ‘shock’-Horror film viewing is what is ideal for a night-in with friends. As an interesting aside, my decision to watch the films (I sit in the second camp) had criticisms from one group of film-writers who were shocked at my decision to watch the films in the first place; How can I watch F.W. Murnau’s Sunrise one day and then watch this the next? Then I had a different group of film-writers who, by the same token, were equally shocked – but because it was a niche-genre; one which they pride themselves on their own in-depth knowledge of. In both cases, the decision to watch the film on my part is a strange one – but why not? A film represents the filmmaker and, if successful, it represents an interest on the part of the audience. What is it that has drawn viewers to this film – is it merely the shock value or something more?

The B-Movie ‘Human Centipede’

The trappings of a B-Movie are evident from the very start in The Human Centipede (First Sequence). Small cast, young-and-attractive teenagers lost on a road-trip … they approach a strange house which, we already know, contains a sinister character. So far, so-very “Texas Chainsaw Massacre”. The story rolls along with such an obvious narrative, you feel as if the idea of ‘The Human Centipede’ came first and the story later. I can imagine Tom Six sitting at a laptop realising that the ‘shock’ idea of a ‘Human Centipede’ would be fascinating in-and-of itself – the story surrounding it would be more difficult. Indeed, the release in 2010 of the ‘first sequence’ is hot-on-the-heels of Saw and the various films of the torture-porn genre. Unlike many (but not all) of these films, The Human Centipede is set primarily in one house and the clinical implements are highlighted from the outset. The vast majority of the ‘horror’ comes from what we know he has, does and will do. We don’t see anything explicitly. In that regard, the film is intelligent as it hints at the surgeon-like precision that Dr. Heiter (Dieter Laser) clearly excels in.

In 2012, it even predates the exceptional skill of Antonio Banderas’ doctor in The Skin I Live In and could be influenced by the twin brothers in Cronenbergs body-horror Dead Ringers. In both cases, we are horrified by the insanity of their genius – Banderas using his skin-grafting skills for evil; Jeremy Irons using their gynaecological knowledge to create ‘gynaecological instruments for mutant women’. We look at the clinical implements in the room with horror as we understand what they do – but do not see them in use. We definitely don’t see their use-of-purpose. In The Human Centipede, we don’t see his skill in merging each human together; we don’t see the attachment between anus and mouth. We do see his exquisite explanation of what he will do – and a child-like drawing to clarify, before they wake up connected. By that point, the camera would have to be in a pretty strange position to clearly show the stitched-up connection.

A Fear of Foreigners

Akin to Hostel, the fear of foreigners may play a part too.  Therefore the characterisation is something to explore further; is the nationality of the characters purposeful? Is Dr. Heiter preying on a deeply-rooted, but archaic, fear of Nazi-Germany, and the experiments within concentration camps? Are the two lead females purely selected for their target-market appeal; the attractive-women running in fear from the monster? Is the Asian character who leads the centipede chosen purely for his lack of communication-skills, as he speaks a different language? These are all possibilities. I could even theorise that it is a representation of a European feeding off, and abusing, the Asian-American combined-power, as the victims initially reached the continent with only token gestures of respect towards European culture and economic stability. It’s a huge step, granted – but interesting to consider nevertheless.

Despite the obvious expectations of the film, it ultimately seems to create a story whereby we are engaged by the mad-doctor and we are equally voyeurs in watching how the film will end: do they survive? How can they survive? An ambiguous ending leaves the film in an enviable position as it could continue. Key-characters fail to survive, but the question remains as to how the character remaining will continue their life. I would be hard-pushed to recommend it – but if you are after a fun night-in with some obvious thrills and shocks, alongside a gross-idea acted out, then by all means; hunt the film out.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (David Fincher, 2009)

"What if I told you that instead of gettin' older, I was gettin' younger than everybody else?"

Re-Introduction

I have had a gander at some of the older reviews and analysis and thought to myself, hey, I've been blogging for a few years and some reviews didn't get that much attention. Especially from 'back in the day'. This is one of them - published in June 2009. I love David Fincher, but its fair to say that I hate The Curious Case for Benjamin Button. Even now, nobody really mentions it anymore. But lets re-light that debate and flash back to 2009 and this misjudged movie.

I watched the film in the run up to the Oscars and - as a huge fan of David Fincher, Brad Pitt and Eric Roth (Well, Forrest Gump is one of my favourite films) - I had no intention to dislike the film so ... be prepared for a review that contains explicit language.

Quick Synopsis

We start in New Orleans, whereby Daisy Williams is on her deathbed hours before hurricane Katrina hits, and she begins to recount a story to her daughter, Caroline. First she tells of a clock-maker whose son died in war. Because of this tragedy, he makes the clock turn backwards so that everyone knows he wishes he could go back in time and keep his Son alive. Following this, Daisy asks Caroline to read out loud the diary of Benjamin Button - a man whose affliction is growing old and getting younger. Beginning life as a diseased, dying old man, Benjamin defies expectation and lives, getting younger and healthier as each day passes. Initially raised by Queenie, Benjamin also gets many morals from her that he keeps throughout his life - specifically a statement: "Just be thankful for what you got". Daisy met Benjamin through her grandmother, who was a resident at Queenie's care home - the home where Benjamin was raised. Throughout their lives, both Daisy and Benjamin stayed in contact meeting up briefly in their twenties - where Daisy's career as a dancer was stopped by a car accident - and then meeting again in their forties, whereby they both matched in age. When finding out about Daisy's pregnancy (of the woman this story is being recounted to), Benjamin decides to leave knowing that his affliction will be problematic in raising children. Years later, Daisy is in a new relationship with a new husband - who her child believes is her actual Father - and Benjamin, now as a teenager - turns up. They have one special night together and part. Many years afterwards, Daisy sees Benjamin as a child, having lost his memory and then, eventually becoming a baby, dying in her arms.

After this, I was unsure how I could explain the finale, but it was summarised best on a detailed synopsis on IMDB:

"Fully spent by this story, [Back on Daisy's deathbed with her daughter] Daisy and her daughter share a sense of relief and closure that comes with the revelation of long-hidden truths. In the background, Hurricane Katrina is getting dangerously near the hospital and soon diverts Carolines attention away from her mother. Daisy looks to the window and sees a hummingbird approach and then fly away into the storm. The camera pans out to reveal hospital staff scurrying to evacuate patients and transport medical supplies. We then see a montage of some of the memorable characters from the film, spoken of by Ben himself, and ending with the hurricane's waters washing into a storeroom where sits the old clock, still ticking backwards."

Special FX and a Timeless Narrative

This is really quite a film. The special effects are flawless - and showing the range of ages of Benjamin and Daisy does look quite smooth and in no way affects the watching-of-the-film. Basically, these groundbreaking effects, do not interrupt the narrative. The narrative has enough problems.

First off, the 'New Orleans' context. Whats the point. Why? They might as well have set it on Greenwich Street, NYC on September 11, 2001. Or any other major historical event - the idea of Hurricane Katrina somehow linked to this fictional story, if anything, is quite insulting to the actual people who were affected by the disaster. Not to mention the simple fact that, as a viewer, you are interested in Benjamin Button, not Granny's tale. Eric Roth used a similar 'flashback-to-the-events' in 'Forrest Gump', but that's because the bus-rider who sat next to Forrest on the bench was in a state of awe as he recounted his life, while - first off - Caroline, is more concerned about her dying mother and the disaster waiting to hit the hospital, so - understandably - she is not in the same position as the bench-sharers in Gump. She might simply be interested in the bunch of secrets her mother kept from her - secrets that she didn't really have to keep. Whatever the case may be, it was unnecessary and simply stalls the story. It would have been better to simply cut out the entire 'Titanic' rip-off sequences.

Is it wrong to not like Brad Pitt?

Next point is Brad Pitt. I have never had a problem with Brad Pitt. 'Seven' and 'Fight Club' I would put amongst the best films in the 90's -'Fight Club' possibly the best. So David Fincher directing Pitt again was a brilliant combination, but alas, Brad Pitt is not playing a young, arrogant, self-satisfied smug character. He's playing a slow-speaking, slightly nervous, old/young man and, the fact of the matter is, he's not that interesting. Now my blame for the film goes to Brad Pitt (could he have made the character a little bit more interesting) and Eric Roth (the script has so many problems I feel). But I don't want to dwell on how shit Brad Pitt is but, put it this way, I got bored of his gormless look. His semi-awe, semi-astonishment with eyes half-asleep. Where the hell was his passion? Maybe he is positive about life, maybe he lives by his sounds-a-lot-like-life-is-like-a-box-of-chocs "Just be thankful for what you got" statement, but - unlike Gump - Benjamin Button isn't stupid, he is actually quite perceptive and knows a lot so why on earth do they not dwell on these factors? why do they insist on zooming-in on Pitt's face as if his face-of-astonishment is good enough to clarify what he says?

To add to this, why does he not utilise his getting-younger affliction. He might as well have a scarred face or be burn victim, because other than his patronising attitude to life, he seems to be completely unaware that he has this amazing gift. Cate Blanchett's 'Daisy' goes through her own lots-of-boyfriends phase and pursues a dream and fails - all very interesting life situations which many people can relate to. While Benjamin Button seems to not have any dream - he just loves all the people he meets, and during his thirties and twenties, we see about 5 minutes of flashbacks showing him travelling. These five minutes could have been the film itself - showing how he is tackling being a young, Brad Pitt: maybe an opportunity for the smug arrogance Brad Pitt can do so well! (Probably wouldn't work). Does Benjamin Button go through any emotional turmoil? Considering the problem he has, you would think there is scope for real anger, frustration or desire but alas, this is never seen. If I recall, at one point he gets angry telling Daisy that his daughter needs a 'father not a playmate'. This is the most emotional he gets - even leaving Daisy asleep, leaving her all his assets, he does not at any point seem unsure. You don't feel him longing to stay, but aware he has to go. He simply skulks away quietly - patience showing thought I guess - and gets on his very cool bike wearing very cool clothes. Him, breaking down as he leaves wold have been too much to ask. Maybe he doesn't cry - another affliction that doesn't bother him.

In closing...I can't believe it was even nominated for Best Picture, it really falls flat on any emotional level. I really am unsure how to approach the next David Fincher - a flawless legend prior to this piece of trash.

Originally Published: 20th June 2009

[It's nice to know that the next David Fincher was The Social Network ... Fincher you are okay in my book now!]

Terminator Salvation (McG, 2009)

"I knew it. I knew it was coming. But this is not the future my mother warned me about. And in this future, I don't know if we can win this war."

Introduction

So, finally, a short plan to watch all the Terminator films has finally drawn to a close. And it really has petered out - nothing special to finish. I think its fair to say that Terminator Salvation is the weakest of the four films. They really tried to make it special but I think the desire to create a family-friendly big-ass blockbuster sci-fi action film is the problem - where are the darker themes of industrialism and capitalism? Gone, replaced with clear and obvious themes of 'who am I'. An identity crisis - you would think John Connor would've dealt with than in T2.

You Would Think The Revival of Batman was a Good Choice...

Christian Bale is John Connor. I think it is fair to say that, at this point in the franchise, the role of John Connor has to go to someone everyone is excited about seeing. Discussions about Chris Nolans The Dark Knight and Batman Begins often veer into the terriotory of Christian Bale: Is he a good Batman? I think most people feel that he is not flawless - there are issues. A lack of expression and emotion - a sinister charm that could be sweeter? Nevertheless, the gritty John Connor seemed ideal for Bale but I think the biggest problem is the script - and it reckon Bale, therefore, phoned it in. No real effort in the role methinks. His lame gravelly voice - Nick Stahl and Edward Furlong didn't have a destroyed voicebox - whilst delivering lines from the franchise that have simply been squeezed in for no clear reason: Kate Connor asking "What should I tell your men when they find out you're gone?" and John Connor replies - "I'll be back". Eugh. Then there is Kyle Reeses opening line - "Come with me if you want to live". Its non-sensical and doesn't help the film in any respect. Nobody is sitting in the cinema waiting for these lines to be re-delivered. Think McG, Think.

Time-Travel

There is none! A franchise rooted in 'turning-the-clocks' back - regret and remorse about our capitalist actions. One of the best aspects to the weak-Terminator 3 was seeing Skynet and their resources build the first terminators. Deleted scenes on the DVD too show a very strange clip as the actual Arnie speaks with a deep-south accent as a military-man states "we'll change the voice". The first two films utilise time-travel to save any depth shown of the future. I think this is a staple of the series. We want to see the smaller-scale story as the bigger-scale story continues in the background. We didn't even see Kyle Reese go back in time - now that would've been cool.

Considering how simple the original stories were, this film is that much more complex. How can this be?  It can be as we follow the story of Kyle (Anton Yelchin) himself and his 'LA' resistance, then we have the pseudo-complexity of Marcus: a murderer placed on death-row, only to be resurrected again as a robotic-human ... but alas, he has a 'strong heart' (Worthington? Strong Heart?...). Finally we also have the huge-scale resistance John Connor is setting up. All of these issues at play ... remember when it was a simple terminator-is-trying-to-kill-sarah-connor. Easy. Everything else was secondary in The Terminator. (I think there is much more depth in The Terminator but, one the surface, it can be seen as a simplistic story ... I think you ca lose your way with Terminator Salvation)

Identity

As previously mentioned, the film is less focussed on Capitalism and Industrialism and, instead, focusses its attention on identity. Who makes us who we are? Is John Connor only who he is through who his Mother was? Is Marcus human or not? Is his heart in the right place? And what decides who we truly are? Can we give murderers a second chance?

Ironically, identity is something the film lacks. We have alot of nods to the previous films - much like Terminator 3 - a similar look to The Terminator: industrial settings and boiling molten-metal that is used - the steam lit up by red light whilst we cut to huge chase sequences in (take a guess), the Nevada desert. I felt that the use of a CGI Arnie was appropriate and was a highlight - it reallt was effective and only rang false because we all know Arnie is not that young and will not star in a film for a long time yet. The classic theme is used briefly but is not overbearing - but I missed it a little bit if i'm honest.

Back to the identity issue - all the other films had a consistency regarding the anti-capitalist theme (I would say anti-technology - but in T2 and Terminator 3 - the technology that is Arnie, is what saves the day), but this is not explored in Terminator Salvation. Ironically, with such an epic-scale - end of the world, post-judgment day destruction - the themes are quite small: what makes us who we are? In contrast, The Terminator was actually quite a small-scale story: bad robot tries to kill innocent woman, but with an epic-theme: the progress of technology and the lack of foresight of these companies - ignoring the knock-on effects of their actions. McG brings to the table some nice continuous tracking shots - but its just not good enough. That perfect example of the bad script with a hard-working cast and crew.

John Connor tells us that this is not the future his Mother, Sarah Connor, warned him about - I don't think Terminator Salvation was the future James Cameron predicted either. Hence, Cameron has disassociated himself from the franchise. Forever.

Though, in a very capitalist way, I'm pretty sure he takes royalties from anything made associated with the franchise - going a little bit against the morals established in his two films... And like the franchise, the Terminator-world has turned to shit. Where do they go now? I reckon they will go back in time and reboot the franchise... its only a matter of time.

Remember - you can always email The Simon and Jo Film Show directly using this email: simonandjoshow@gmail.com

We are also on Twitter  and Facebook.

Kynodontas

The finale was an oddity and no mistaking. Thanks to a recommendation from the Bibby sisters I was sitting comfortably for Dogtooth, a Greek film starring a family with a very confused heart and way of doing things.

The story shows what happens when parents decide to create their own set of rules to keep their three children at home, imprisoned. They've bought them up to understand they can only leave the grounds of the house when their dogtooth has fallen out. As the tooth will never fall out the children, whose age is unclear but they appear to be in their early twenties, cannot leave. Indeed thanks to the world that's been created around them they fear the outside, taking appropriate opportunities to bark at it. All rules, from definitions of words to interacting with people, come from the immediate family circle. This kind of social experiment is complicated by mum and dads intention to stay in control by changing meanings and that's an approach which gets increasingly out of hand.

The escalation of the lies results in increasingly violent confrontations, although with a surreal edge as normal reactions definitely aren't in play here. The intrusion of a cat into the garden has an especially bloody conclusion which illustrates the extremeness of the abnormal behaviour and allows for further twists of the crazy rules. This control is further explored in further explicit fashion when the father brings in a young woman to satisfy his sons sexual urges. This ritual is pretty damn uncomfortable for the participants and audience but including an outsider further also shifts the plot on by creating further conflict, complications and misunderstandings.

As the situation unfolds there is certainly a distinct lack of explanation of what the blazes is going on. The non traditional nature of the families communication means that the viewer is rarely aware what exactly is being talked about. Indeed the conversations take odd twists which are darkly comic. Such as the necessity to explain that a pussy is a big light. And the eldest being exposed to films which lead her to decide she wants to be called Bruce. It's all stilted and confusing but oddly engaging. The apex of this bizarre world is a dancing scene which manages to be hilarious and horrible, the desperation to impress collides with a desire to express feelings utilising a completely random style. Compelling stuff.

Speculation on social experimentation is generally pretty interesting. How indeed would a child react under such conditions. The motivation of the parents is never clear, there's a suggestion of misguided protection but the mystery sustains a level of interest although it's a constant struggle knowing who to trust or root for. The children are bloody confusing, it's difficult to connect with people operating in such a different world and the outbursts they partake in are don't make them likeable. But the actors present experimentation of human nature really rather well, so there's sympathy to feel for their predicament and an abrupt ending which allows for a little personal speculation.

It's a slow burning look at what might happen when parents try shape their children on an extreme level. Punctuated with challenging moments of sex and violence as well as black comedy Dogtooth made for a decent end to this particular holiday journey.

A White Ribbon (Michael Haneke, 2009)

"When you were little, your Mother tied a white ribbon in your hair or around your arm. Its white colour was to remind you of innocence and purity."

Introduction

Discussed on a previous episode of 'The Simon and Jo Film Show', 'The White Ribbon' was the winner of the Palme D'Or at Cannes '09, and as we build up to Cannes 2010, it seems the appropriate time to raise a few points on this film. As always - and especially with this film - the scope of this film is much larger than the small section I will explore. I only saw this film once - at the good ol' Barbican - and am keen to watch it again ... but, this is additionally the first Michael Haneke film I have seen and currently the sweet 10-film boxset (not available in USA by the looks of things...) has been spotted for £40 in Fopp... time will tell ...

Definition of the Past

The film is set in rural Germany in a small village. It purposefully pre-dates both World Wars and within the community most people - excpt perhaps the children - all have defined roles. A doctor, a schoolteacher, pastor, baron, baroness, midwife, etc. Then, in a completely still shot, we see a horse ride towards camera - and as it crosses the space between a gateway, it flips over. A wire had been set, purposefully, to trip up the horse with the doctor riding. We ask the question who set this trap? The invisible nature of evil parrallels with the invisibility of the wire set as a trap. We don't know why it is there, we don't know who planned it - but we do know it was a person with intent to hurt.

The Pastors children - Klara and Martin - are portrayed early on as incredibly sinister and, ultimately, badly behaved. The Pastor ties small white ribbons to their arms to remind them of their purity - but uses a cane to sanction the children for trivial offences. In one incredibly sensitive scene, the Pastor learns of Martin beginning to masturbate and tells him the horrors that will bestow him if he continues - and then he ties his hands to the bed frame. The group of children Klara and Martin walk around with are equally dubious - we question their morals and, potentially, their involvement with the crimes in the village.

A Narration of Events

The narrator is a school teacher who recounts events as he fell in love with a Nanny - Eva. What is interesting, is that the first line from him discredits his relaiability, stating something along the lines of "I can't remember exactly what happened but...". His role is in education - it could be assumed that it is his role to educate the children in the village and potentially he takes partial responsibility for the childrens misdemeanors. The fact-of-the-matter is that the adults are as corrupt (if not moreso) than the children. So, while Martin is 'educated' in how masturbation is wrong - the Doctor completely humiliates the midwife - a relationship he conducted prior to him deceased wife's death. Additionally, the Doctor sexually abuses his own daughter.

Set in a Historical Context

I remember reading somewhere that Spielberg chosen to shoot 'Schindlers List' in black and white because whenever he was told about the holocaust and educated about World War II, it was always through black and white photographs and footage. In a potentially similar way, 'The White Ribbon' is shot in black and white though, as I heard through Filmspotting, this was due to a production issue - the company wanted a version in colour to show on TV (???) so, Haneke shot the film in colour and then took the colour out in post-production. It does give the film a historical weight and importance.

The film ends as Archeduke Franz Ferdinand is assasinated and war is declared and our narrator, the school teacher, leaves the village. The focus is how the predating of this film is to show how these children became the fascists of World War II - a vague attempt at understanding the twisted morals of the Nazi's. This makes a great talking-point post-viewing.

Personally, I couldn't help but compare this to M. Night Shyamalan's 'The Village'. Though less art-house, both films focus upon the corrupt attempts authority have to control the children in their care. In a strange way, the limited palette of Shyamalan and Haneke also strike true - whilst personally I prefer the fog and marshy space surrounding Shyamalans village opposed to Hanekes cold and shiny village. The colour that attracts 'those that we don't speak of'  becoming void in Shyamalans village create a fascinating yellow and green colour scheme, whilst the black and white coolness of Hanekes village make a much more underlying sinister horror opposed to the more obvious and explicit horror in 'The Village'.

Obviously, this is a review I could add to and explore moreso in the future. But, at the moment, I shall merely recommend 'The White Ribbon' highly - a gradual build-up deconstructing the twisted morals of characters in history. Yet like the best historical films, it has a striking relevance today as the world our children now grow up within - celebrity role models, possessions to define wealth, happiness defined by money - will inevitably have a knock-on effect on their adult lives but, we await with baited breath, as to how. No answers from Michael Haneke, merely the question raised.

In the words from 'Starship Troopers' - do you want to know more? Check out this article discussing faith in the film.

Harry Brown (Daniel Barber, 2009)

"He screamed for a good 10 minutes. We couldn't send a medic in, the section was too hot. So we all took cover... and watched him die. I've never told that... to anyone... you should've called an ambulance... for the girl..."

Introduction

This was watched a long time ago and is covered on a previous 'The Simon and Jo Show' podcast but, as I see on Movie Moxie's blog, it is being released very soon in America so now seems to be the time to big-up some British movies. But, alas, though it has some incredible moments, overall it sure does have problems.

Opinion/Analysis

The pre-credits 'viral-footage' of some youths on a bike, gun in hand, scaring the shit out of the public does shock and place high expectations on the film before we even see Michael Caine. Unfortunately, as soon as we see Caine the films slows down to the pace of the OAP he plays. Which we see initially listening to the radio news-story of the aforementioned 'viral-footage'. He slowly gets up and slowly moves and slowly plays chess with his slow friend. Caine decides to pay back the teenagers after his chess-playing buddy - who has been harrassesd for years (poo stuffed into his letterbox, attempts on his life with fire...) decides to try and fight back with a bayonet. He fails and his 'attack' on the kids merely put him into the attacker category of crime - rather than the victim which he truly was. So, with a plot reminiscent of Gran Torino we have the old-man revenge mission story.

This doesn't take away from the realism - Barber doesn't shy away from the use of shadows and the dark and dingy nature of cheap housing and badly lit streets makes you feel a true part of the film. And helps you understand the fear Caine feels in the area. One specific scene involving Caine torturing a different boy is so cinematic with very few shards of light lighting up Caine as the real fear he wants the youths to see him as. One unneccessary section seems to be some gratutious sexual back stories. One kid who is clearly seen as a little special is dragged away by this drug dealer to his car - this hard-ass drug dealer as another part of the problems in this community and for some reason the guy forces this boy to give him oral sex. Now don't get me wrong, I am sure these things happen - but I thought the focus was on Caine and the 'bad kids' in the area - when you bring in sexual abuse (which clearly the child was a victim of, hence his willingness to do the act) you expect a more compassionate tone. The abuse expected of this boy merely made you feel even more frustrated at the horrendous situation the kids were in. As a teacher, I know full-well that bad kids don't come from nowhere - there is a reason. There is always a reason and in this film, the side we are forced to stand on is Michael Caines. The children are seen as screw-ups - in a violent way and, in this scene, even in a sexual way. No exploration of these characters really let the film down.

Fact is, I felt that the actor who played Noah (Ben Drew) was incredible. His attitude seem real and rooted in a lack of respect for the society he lives in. Everything was shut down. Nothing would phase him - his power and stance in the group was what he lived off because society had apparently given up on him. You get a brief idea of an exceptionally broken family - as you see his Mother try and stop the police from taking her son - but his disrespect towards anyone who tries to help was clear. I look forward to seeing Ben Drew in other films - especially Adulthood as it should be a similar role to this and combine that with the script of Noel Clarke and hopefully
you have a great London-youth drama. There is a small hint of back-story to Harry Brown (Caine) himself - his Wife dies in record time at the start of the film. It seems quite clear that she had been dying for a while and then passes away at the start of the film. We also know that a young 13-year child of his died many years before so there is a tragedy to this guys life - but then again maybe this shuld have been used more - the comparison to the life that theese youths have and how they have wasted their youth terrorising older folk, while Caines child died before he could enjoy his young teenage years. Personally, if the focus was more on the current stage in this mans life - and his hope to rid the estate of these criminals (rather than all this unncessary back story), it would have made a much more focussed film. Instead it attempts to touch on aspects which are never resolved.

Unfortunately for all the good things, the last act seems unneccessary. What begins as a situation on a very small scale and is handled badly by the police (Emily Mortimer as an investigator - what is her purpose? what does she achieve? Frustratingly bad - they might as well have very little police prescence in the film to point out the useless nature of them rather than badly write scenarios to make the same point). Eventually the film snowballs into some large-scale riot and 'twists' finish the story - 'twists' that no one cared to 'look out' for. Something that started so well and could have very slowly built up became incredibly drawn-out and, ultimately, boring by the end. To make matters worse, the last shot is of OAP Caine looking at the subway originally inhabited by the violent youths - and with no one there, he walks through it safely. So, such a complex issue of economic-deprivation and criminal behaviour is simplified to "Old man aims to clear subway".

Then again, on a positive note, Caines angry OAP makes a good point. Having fought in Northern Ireland war, he argues that at that point he was "fighting for something" - while "these kids fight for entertainment" and, consequently, cause chaos. This is not the simple answer. The kids are often involved in these gangs and groups at a very young age and have very little reason to look elsewhere. Why are people not suprised that the children who join these gangs have such a twisted logic. Money, power, sex and control is what 'defines' success in the media - so why are we not suprised that this is created on a smaller scale in shifty housing estates. When success is defined as happiness, family and culture, etc, then the economically-deprived areas will be proud of their important part of society - and not demand the 'money' and 'power' that can be gained very easily in criminal behaviour. We need to think more of Rafelsons Five Easy Pieces rather than everyone expecting to come out on top like Rocky.

The Hurt Locker (Kathryn Bigelow, 2009)

"There's enough bang in there to blow us all to Jesus. If I'm gonna die, I want to die comfortable"

Introduction

It would make sense to cover this before the Oscars. I did not even know about the 'buzz' surrounding this when it was released in the UK - bad marketing I think. Then again, released in August, it had to compete with the Summer big-boys and ... those last two weeks of August, for me, was spent in Morocco so all the publicity it got was lost on me. Even before it got to the cinemas, buzz surrounded it following its premiere at the Venice Film festival - with a ten-minute standing ovation. It continued through the year - Best Film of 2009 - one of the few that managed to cross boundaries to get into Sight and Sound and Empires Top 10 lists. Then the awards: Directors Guild, BAFTA nominations, Golden globe nominations, Oscars ... the list goes on. After I watched it, I had to squeeze Synecdoche, New York out of the number ten-spot, placing The Hurt Locker just after The White Ribbon at Number 5.

Nevertheless, I was keen to see ever since I saw the credibility garned from the aforementioned magazines - but alas - it was only months after that I managed to watch it. Not at the cinema too - which wold have been awesome - but by paying full price for the Blu-ray disc. Quite a risk - but then, there are bigger risks you can take.

An Unknown Story

We are following bomb disposal unit in Iraq. The film opens with a situation whereby Thompson (Guy Pearce) is killed trying to 'dispose' a bomb. The film then tracks the change in the unit as a new guy - Sgt Will James (Jeremy Renner) - replaces the deceased memeber of the unit. The other two members of the unit have their own problems, but it is Will James who rocks the boat with a complete diisregard for danger - for one, he doesn't use the robot-bomb-finder, preferring to wear the bomb-suit and sorting all out himself. Throughout the film we are counting down the days before the unit are rotated out again - this gives us the impression that the soldiers are dying to get home. And maybe thats true for most of them - but some of them are in their element.

A Sense of Urgency ...

Bigelow gives the film a sense of urgency as the film is shot on hand-held, documentary-style cameras. Only using huge landscape shots and interesting angles when it reveals something shocking (five, six bombs ...) or something beautiful (the desert landscape...). The pace of each section also helps you become entirely 'on-edge' throughout the film - and as the lead actors are 'unknown' you have no investment in them as to whether they live or die. They are as unknown as the soldiers in Afghanistan now.

Death Obsessed

What positions this film higher than the vast majority of war films is the questions it raises regarding the initial question: What makes a good soldier? I shall never forget a conversation I had with a fellow teacher a short while ago regarding soldiers on the front line - he claimed that soldiers on the front line should be criminals. If you got to prison, he claimed, you should join the army and fight on the front line. I was very quick to state that it is madness - why on earth do you want to put the petty theives and the I-go-against-authority folk, apparently under authroity defending everyone else. I would rather someone clever and wise defend my ass. Fact is, the best soldiers are often those who conduct themselves well under-pressure and who have no fears of danger - they just focus on the job at hand. So, you think of the criminal burglar - one would assume they conduct themselves well under pressure, clearly don't consider the dangers associated with such-a-lifestyle (Jail? I'm better than that; Owner of the house with a gun? I'll beat their ass before they pull the trigger.) - the focus is on theft, and how to steal items quick and quietly.

Now think of The Hurt Locker - our first impression of Sgt Will James is that he is dangerous and a liability - but soon enough, we realise that Eldridge (Geraghty), you could argue, is a liability because he is so scared of dying and even Sanborn (Mackie) has his own fears and worries - and as careful as he is - these fears could affect his judgement. By the end, the 'loose cannon' (could their be a more incorrect term?) that is Sgt. James is the perfect soldier. Thats how I feel anyway. His focus is only on the job - his life, and even the lives of the other soldiers - are on a knife-edge anyway. If he can save a man attached to a bomb, he will try to save him (whether or not statistically it is unsafe) because he is human - and he does care. But the fear of death and danger is not a factor - the disposal of a bomb is more important. Eldridge is death-obsessed, Thompson - I assume - and Sanborn ignore it but Sgt Will James. He knows of death. Being so close to death is a part of the job (so celebrate it - keep souvenirs!). What is also part of the job, and is more important than his life - is the lives of others and the lives of the people he defends. That is the job a soldier.

Vicky Cristina Barcelona (Woody Allen, 2009)

"Maria Elena used to say that only unfulfilled love can be romantic"

Introduction

Like most of us bloggers - who love movies but don't get paid to watch them - I had only seen this once when I rated it third best film of 2009. I watched it soon after Christmas and, I must say, it remains as high as it was. Contrary to other views - Nick James' coverage of Cannes in 2008 claimed Vicky Cristina Barcelona as "another clunky, ham-fisted comedy from the fading genius" and he continues, stating that "the story fizzles out as you knew it always would". Nick James - why are you so cruel? Even recently, on the podcast, Jo claimed this was one of the worst pay-offs in history - the Cruz-Johannsson kiss. I completely disagree. In my chart it is good enough that, in time, it could potentially climb higher. I adore this film. As some of you may know, I'm an Art teacher - I graduated in Fine Arts, focussed on oil-painting portraiture and art history. The creative mind and what makes creativity - and the completely intertwined attitudes to love, romance and sex that art has is something I find true and fascinating. To add to it, prior to watching Vicky Cristina Barcelona I was going through a semi-Woody Allen phase and managed to watch a bunch of his movies over a short period.

Sensual and Sexual

The big sell of this film - not that it was what pulled me to the film - was the kiss between Johansson and Cruz. It's not the centre piece - but anyone who feels that this type of thing is worth hunting down is clearly someone who also, potentially, wants to understand sexuality and attraction (How do they make her attracted to her? etc) - or they are perv's. This film does answer that question, but also changes the perception of such an attitude (attraction to sexuality and attraction to another person) and challenges these expectations - the long-term and short-term nature of these attitudes. Cristina (Johansson) follows instinct and attraction - she is prepared to challenge her views and accept others. A true liberal. But alas, like anything in the world, experience can hurt and sometimes forces you to face who you truly are. Cristina values art - she wants to be art - as an actress. She turns to photography but only rates herself when accepted by others - much like acting. Can you act a role on your own for the sake of yourself and no audience? Cristina needs an audience and therefore needs acceptance and acknowledgment. Praise and support. But, when she is expected to be self-sufficient, she retreats to comfort, to something she knows and understands. Hence, inevitably perhaps, her self-analysis, pushes her away from the artistic central romance between Juan-Antonio (Bardem) and Maria-Elena (Cruz).

Commitment-phobia

I always get frustrated when someone claims they are 'just like Chandler' from Friends. Chandler - who was infamous for having a phobia of commitment. By labelling yourself under his banner, you think you are funny and self-effacing - who is ever going to be as arrogant to believe they are Joey? Who is going to want to admit being anything close to psycho-geek Ross? Whatever the case, the nature of commitment is interesting - and whenever we watch these films and television programmes - especially like Vicky Cristina Barcelona, inevitably, we draw comparisons and have to consider where we stand.

Are you like Vicky? Secure in her attitude towards relationships - proud of her planning and future, set out in stone, in front of her. Or are you like Cristina? Expecting to find love - not worried about defining love, just knowing what it is. This attitude is set up in the opening as the two arrive in Barcelona. The two explore options and explore possible choicses in their life but, by the end, remain believing what they initially felt: fear of embarressment, fear of commitment, fear of unplanned eventuality, a fear of some sort stops them from 'seeing through' their instincts and and attitudes.

But, when comparing yourself to the characters, there is a third choice - are you like Maria-Elena? Completely free in her artistic ambition. The 'true' genius - the genius who Juan-Antonio apparently takes his ideas from. The nature of commitment and love are tangible to her - the arguments are not wanted and the consequence of these arguments are not discussed. She acts how she feels without any foresight into how her attitudes affects others. This comes to the forefront at the climax as her 'emotions' become dangerous, wounding Vicky. Juan-Antonio is similiar in that respect - his perfection flawed by his lack of concern over other people. What about Vicky's husband? Does he consider him when he flirts with Vicky? No - the 'unartistic' have nothing compared to the passion of Juan-Antonio. His selfish 'discovery' and pride is what forces Vicky to leave - he is frustrated as he doesn't now how to balance his emotions and, as Vicky is rational and will plan, Juan-Antonion is irrational and acts on emotion. That is who they are. The tragic finale - as Vicky and Juan-Antonio are clearly not meant to be -fits perfectly in fiction and makes us, as a viewer, that much more involved.

Our Involvment

As an audience, what makes us more involved is the true-to-life nature of Vickys relatives: Judy and Mark. We might relate on a wishful level with the primary characters - but there is no connection to the world we live in. I don't know about you - but I haven't got the finances to just paint and create day in, day out (the best I have is some small sketches as I how 30 twelve year-old kids how to cross-hatch), and I have not got any relatives with the beautiful pad in Barcelona (Limerick? anyone?) - but the fact is, Judy and her husband Mark have been together for a long time and we know these comfortable figures - work colleagues or, dare I say it, parents. Judy and Vicky, discussing Judy's infidelity, is an incredible scene as Patricia Clarkson's Judy has to face-up to what she has done. Mark and Doug's only crime is a lack of creativity - they are not bad people. Judy knows this but is too far in - the romance and lust outweighed the security and comfortable marriage she is in. But is this experience going to impact on Vicky? Would it impact on you? There is something so real about Judy confessing her sins to Vicky - and even, when Vicky is shot in the hand, the completely ridiculous nature of the situation suddenly appears and the anger at herself - moreso than Juan-Antonio - and the trust she has betrayed of Dougs is the biggest concern. Those few seconds post-shooting, Vicky believes her entire futrure has changed and she is suddenly positive that is not what she wants - realigning herself with Doug and the family and life she and Doug had planned. Luckily, Doug is clueless and believes her lie.

Conclusion

We stay with Barcelona as long as Vicky and Cristina - we are with them for the ride. They arrive and leave witht he same perspective so, the cynics out there could feel a bit used. The 'space-time' continuum is disrupted by Juan-Antonio, but alas, by the end we are where we were. Akin to Michael Mann's starting and ending at a different airport (see Collateral and Heat) this does the same, beginning and ending at the same escalator.

Personally, I try and understand Juan-Antonio. Is he real? Is he an amalagamation of a fantasy guy - the most romantic man in the world - or are we supposed assume he exists? Furthermore, if he does exist, is he insane? The world he tries to balance - his destructive relationship with Maria-Elena (she stabbed him!) ... the proposition to Vicky and Cristina ... these are not normal situations. Then this begs the question about artists. What is an artist? Juan-Antonio and Maria-Elena clearly are artists ... but they have insecurities to say the least. Is Cristina an artist? Or, inside, are we all artists? Vicky has romantic expectations but gave up on them. Judy wants the romantic world of Barcelona - and the infidelities. Maybe it serves as a warning to ignorant men of the world: Appreciate romance and passion and, ultimately, art in the widest possible sense of the word - otherwise suffer the consequences as, inevitably, people will crave the art from somewhere, and settle for the romance from someone else.

I just re-read the last paragraph, it might not work. It seems a weak finale to the bastard post I have been writing and re-writing for god knows how long. But, enough is enough. I shall inevitably revisit Vicky Cristina Barcelona and, when I do, I may make a few adjustments ... until then ...

Avatar (James Cameron, 2009)

"Just relax and let your mind go blank. That shouldn't be too hard for you."

Introduction

12 years in production, so we are told. James Camerons first feature film since Titanic. We all think it will be flawless and yet, we also know that our expectations of the film is unfair because the expectations are so high. I personally think the marketing campaign was awful - nothing we hadn't seen before. Those huge blue faces on posters meant nothing - reminded me of an out-of-proportion, incomplete half-face pencil sketch. As an Art-teacher, I spent many years improving my drawing skills drawing many-a-self-portrait and one of the first things you get wrong is proportions - the size of the eyes, of the mouth, etc - and so you stop drawing at a point, such as when you have only completed half the face, of the area around the eyes. So, to finish, the posters of too-big-eyes and too-big-lips, with only half the face shown simply reminded me of incomplete portraits. Not exactly exciting. Nevertheless, with Chris Hewitt's 5-star review 'flawed but fantastic' and Roger Eberts 'two thumbs-up', it could hardly be too bad. Then came the negative press. Tom Huddleston's two-out-of-five in Time Out and Anthony Quinn of The Independent seemed intent on stating how, as impressive as it looked, the consistency of themes - "corporate predators versus harmonious tree-dwelling natives, militarism versus humanism" - did not exactly stay true-to-its intent by the final act. Before I continue, I side closer to the 2/5 and 3/5 reviewers rather than the, what I think is ridiculous, five-star, top-marks it got elsewhere. Avatar will not be king of the world this year.

Opinion/Analysis

Get the, rather dull, story out of the way: Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) has legs that don't work and becomes an Avatar of himself as a Na'vi creature - a religious tribal group who are fiercely predatorial on the planet Pandora. The Na'vi protect nature and respect the environment - in an early sequence, the killing of vicious dogs to save Jake is deemed sad because the vicious dogs are part of the environment as are the Na'vi (unlike the humans who are not literally connected to the environment, while the Na'vi actually are literally connected to everything around them - trees, animals, etc). Fact is, beneath the home of the Na'vi is expensive rocks that Ribisi and his corporate company is desperate to get their hands on. Jake, initially amongst the Na'vi to gain their trust and move them out so the humans can take the rocks, begins to then change and adapt his views to suit the Na'vi, ultimately preferring his life - with legs - as a Na'vi tribal member rather than being a human. How the militaristic company deal with this situation in the final reel is obviously out-and-out war which looks great and it ends as one side wins. Guess who folks?

Straight off, I found something jarring about the blue-people and their eyes. Something nearly cartoonish about it. My favourite visual treats was not the landscapes - which you could watch on any Blue Planet or Planet Earth documentary (or even on one of those 3D films released years ago about nature) - but it was the shots of the humans standing close to the Na'vi. The beautiful finish as the Na'vi creature Neytiri (Zoe Saldaña) holds the human Jake Sully in her arms. It was almost surreal and rooted in true-fantasy. Recalling artwork by Boris Vallejo and other fantasy artists. Fact is, this was a passing resemblance rather than a true rooted-in-the-visual theme.

Additionally, the machines the humans used were, pretty much, the same as the ones used in The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions. Obviously, as Thomas Anderson 'jacks' into the matrix to become Neo, Jake Sully 'jacks' into his Avatar body to become 'jakesullee'. So the parallels are constant. The difference being that 'Jakesullee' is who Jake stays as - while Neo was fighting the forces, but had to become powerful, in his real body. There is a much deeper philosophical story in the idea that people would give up their lives to be something they are not, while Avatar seems to have legless-Jake become disgusted in who he really is and therefore change into something he is truly not. Funnily enough, I am reading Barak Obama's book (like everyone) Dreams from my Father whereby one fascinating chapter explains how, as a child, Barack saw a story in Time magazine about an African-American who changed their skin-colour to be white - in a time when racism was more prevalent in society - and this forced Barack to look into the mirror and analyse who he is. And, more importantly, how society views him. Does Avatar claim that if you have some sort of disadvantage in society - such as a disability - you can simply change who you are (in terms of racism, an interesting quote comes from Annalee Newitz of io9 blog in a post titled "When will white people stop making movies like Avatar" concluding that, in Avatar, a 'white guy' becomes the best member of a 'non-white culture'). Interestingly, Jake Sully was even offered 'new legs' (Gump to Lt. Dan "You got new legs!") by the uber-male army-guy - something that could, and should, be an incredibly important shift in the story becomes a simple choice for Jake - choosing to go back 'one-more time' to the land of the Na'vi only proving that he despises who he truly is - with or without legs.

Dances with Wolves - a comparison to Avatar by many critics including Mark Kermode - shows how Dunbar (Costner) becomes a Native-Indian slowly but surely through understanding the Native-American culture. Thing is, it ends as Dunbar is 'saved' by the American army and he has to escape to get back to his tribe. Dunbars change of allegiance makes him a bigger target for the American-army - so Dunbar has to leave the Sioux group so that he doesn't make them a target also. His original identity forces him to be alone. The violence of the American civil-war ultimately won-out in history and there is tragedy in Dunbar being forced to be alone, but it wouldn't have been any better if the Native-Americans 'won' through violence. There should be an acceptance of cultures - not a cultural war, which was, in effect how Avatar ended. Yes, Jake 'tried' to get a mutual understanding with the Na'vi and failed - and the uber-army man and Ribisi claimed that, for years, they tried for a peaceful solution and failed. So, rather than explore a complex issue, Cameron decides to simply show the 'good guys' win without realistically exploring how complex a war actually is - clearly there are always two-sides to any story and, alas, this is merely touched on and not followed through.

Another frustrating section is when 'Jakesullee' prays to the god-like Eywa (a tree...) for help in the coming war. Neytiri tells him that she doesn't favour anyone and won't assist anyone - she is merely there to 'keep the balance'. But this entire argument is contradicted as during the coming war, they Na'vi only 'win' because nature assists and Neytiri is well-aware that it is Eywa who has interceded. So Eywa does favour people - so, think about all those murders 'in the name of God'. What was originally Na'vi defending themselves becomes a God-supported Cause - akin to the God-supported wars of extremists and religious-mentalists.

So many structural and moral flaws with this film - you could go on about it all day. But there are some good points. Namely the actual acting talent. Giovanni Ribisi, for me, was incredible. I have never had a problem with him before and this is no exception. What is interesting is his range - he has a very unique appearance and yet has now officially progressed from the doper-teen roles he played when he was in his mid-twenties (his cameo in Friends, Gone in Sixty Seconds) to more maturer roles in his mid-thirties - playing the corporate boss in a moral dilemma in Avatar. The few scenes he has in Avatar, he completely steals from everyone (except Sigourney Weaver) and he has more depth than poor ol' Sam Worthington and Stephen Langs action-man roles. You really see the difficult position he is in - but how he ignores the moral implications and pushes through his own agenda, potentially threatened moreso by Colonel Miles Quaritch (aka, the aforementioned Action Man) than by his own conscience.

The 3D stuff is impressive, fine. But like any new perspective, once you have climbatised and accepted the 3D it all becomes a bit of a waste. I watched it at the IMAX, so no problems with the edge of the screen and I am sure on a smaller scale - even on your 50" TV screens - there will be stuff missed, but then again, I'll bet once you start watching it, you climbatise and watch it on that smaller screen. And see, this is my problem - following its limited cinema release - when released on DVD, will it matter. All that 3D-ness and for what? for a better 'cinema-experience', cinema will always be better than home-viewing. I guess with all these big-ass TV's in the homestead, 3D makes cinema that-much-more unique. Personally, I still have a classic (I like to think retro) 25 inch, back-projection Sony TV and I don't cry myself to sleep when I watch Gladiator on it. I accept it for what it is and I understand the story and see enough of it to be able to enjoy it and appreciate it - it hardly stops the 'enjoyment'. Fact is, even if I had a huge TV and all the sound and whatnot, Gladiator would still be better at the cinema, so you have to ask yourself this, without 3D, would it matter? How far can these 'changes' come before it all becomes a little redundant. I am sure Avatar in the IMAX is always going to be very different than when viewed, in 2D, in your lounge - as any DVD-on-TV experience is always inferior to the cinema experience. In my opinion, cinema always wins out over TV-viewings, but when Avatar is released on DVD or even blu-ray ... even 3D blu-ray - it will not really seem worth it. Either you watch it the way it was intended - 3D on the IMAX - or you settle for less, even watching it 2D on a big-enough screen (20 inch minimum I would say) and you'll still enjoy the movie. Everything in between seems either not-good-enough or trying-too-hard.

So, to wrap this essay up! Talk of a sequel is in full flow so, yeah, that will happen. It is what it is, but I do think its unneccessary because so much is tied up. Nevertheless, it will inevitably come - if only because they have all the CGI banked from Avatar to use - all they have to consider is the 'new' aspects and areas of this 'world' we are don't know about. I think its fair to say Cameron has not spent 12 years on this one movie, he has spent twelve years establishing a franchise that can run and run. "I'll only work in 3D in the future" Cameron said on The Film Programme podcast ... thats because he will probably only make Avatar sequels. I think this expansion of the world is one of the biggest problems with this first film. I had no idea about the other 'tribes' we found out about in the final act, until they were on screen. There was only hints of history and the size of this world. Considering people claim that the scope of Avatar is akin to The Lord of the Rings, I have to say no - Lord of the Rings was such a huge universe that they had to relay in the first ten, twenty minutes of The Fellowship of the Ring the history that preceeded it to give us the scope the trilogy deserved. No history was shown in Avatar so we only trust what we see - and only in those brief moments when Jakesullee makes his world tour with the clan - do we get some idea of the size of Pandora. Thats only brief, and before we know it, we are fighting some war.

To close, 'let your mind go blank' is what Sigourney Weaver tells Jake before he enters his avatar body - and I feel we need to forget about the countless stories and films that deal with the same themes, issues and aspects of Avatar to truly enjoy the movie. Because, if you really want to know about philosophy watch The Matrix, if you want to know about allegories of the American Civil-war - in fact, just watch a film about the American civil-war, watch Dances with Wolves, if you want Sam Worthington with a 'strong heart', watch Terminator Salvation ... the list goes on.

Nine (Rob Marshall, 2009)

"Directing a movie is a very overrated job, we all know it. You just have to say yes or no."

Introduction

I had high hopes for this. How could you not have high hopes? Daniel Day-Lewis as the lead in a film is reason enough to watch thiis inevitable Oscar-contender. Then you have director Rob Marshall, Oscar-winning Chicago director with another wham-bam musical. The genre - a musical - following hot on the heels of the Oscar ceremony in 2009 for the 2008 releases whereby Wolverine and Beyonce sang the song 'Musicals are back' or something. So, we have a flawless actor, a critically acclaimed director directing his forte of genre's. Its also a musical adaptation of Federico Fellini's masterpiece 8 1/2 so, the story can't be half bad - especially considering the script treatment was written by no other than Anthony The English Patient Minghella. Then we have the leading ladies playing seductresses of classical proportions -
Sophia Loren, Nicole Kidman (who has proven herself in the musical genre in the underrated Moulin Rouge), Judi Dench, Penelope Cruz (having just won an Academy Award for Vicky Cristina Barcelona) - then, to top it off, you have Marion Coutillard, the Oscar-winner (for her incredible performance in musical-biopic about Edith Piaf La Vie En Rose) playing opposite Daniel Day-Lewis. Fergie and Kate Hudson also appear, but less said about them the better... There was absolutely no reason this could have gone wrong.

Opinion/Analysis

Guido (Daniel Day-Lewis) is about to make his ninth film but is struggling to be inspired. He dazes back and forth between all the women of his life and uses, abuses and relishes in his life whilst realising that all this thinking is getting him nowhere. His long-suffering wife Louisa (Coutillard) has to put up with his affairs (his mistress played by Cruz), whilst he confides in costume designer (Dench) and imagines conversations with his Mother (Loren) and reminds himself of his first experience with a woman, played exceptionally by Fergie (From Black Eyed Peas). Kate Hudson plays an American Vogue editor who fancies Guido and tries to seduce him, as he had seduced her through his Italian Neo-realist films. Then there is Nicole Kidman who plays Guido's muse - his inspiration - for his films. All these women inspire and influence Guido and he troubles himself into creating this ninth feature as all these women fight over his attention.

The first thing I realised was problematic was the songs - I didn't really like the songs. Now I like music and I like musicals and I am suprised that I felt this way. I don't go out of my way to buy musicals on CD but if a song jars, it jars. Take Dreamgirls for example - as cheesy as it was, I never felt the songs jarred. They suited the characters, they suited the scene and they were ultimately keeping in tone with the film. In Nine the songs just didn't grab me. The only song that did was Fergie's incredible performance as she sings 'Be Italian'. A strong vocal, a waltz that builds into a cresendo of chaos as we see the young boy Guido and his buddies chase after the volumptuous character Fergie plays - the first seductress in Guido's life. So thats the first problem - not the script, not the acting, not the visuals but the songs and in a musical I am sure there is an argument that those songs are the most important because if the songs are good you are consequently pulled to watch the musical.

'Be Italian' is the only song that works the way it does - the clear contrast between grainy black and white memories on an Italian beach in Palermo and the passionate reds, revealing dresses and fish-net stockings in the studio show the separation of accurate memory and, essentially the fantasy. But by the time we see this sequence, we have seen this studio before. Most songs use it - from Judi Denchs number (though a wonderful voice I have never heard, the song was simply rubbish) though to the first Guido solo. Daniel Day-Lewis singing and leaping over the scaffolding telling us how frustrated he is being who he is. The first thing you see is an incredible Overture as we see in a single song each and every female in Guido's life as he is pulled and seduced and taken away by every woman. This is over shortly and the next number is this solo which (a) isn't very good as a song, (b) visually is not interesting on scaffolding and, crucially, (c) seems unneccessary. To be teased with a big pretty-much full cast number at the very start and not show us anything close to that until the final reel is not fair on the audience. I felt the use of this false studio set was a bit of a cop-out. I understand the metaphor and why it was used, but as a musical, you want them to sing in the streets and not to simply cut away to the studio for every number. In one number, a song by Louisa - Guido's wife - as she sings about how her husband 'makes movies' to the table she is sitting at, except it is within the studio-set rather than the restaurant she was intially in. Considering the characters froze in position for the song, it would have been more interesting to simply change the lighting in the exact same set. Also, considering the lavish quality it wants to present - the scaffolding of a studio hardly reeks of class. It looks cheap. Another sequence whereby Louisa, emotionally tells Guido how she realises she is like every other woman, is increidble except for how we cut away from Coutillard crying about her failed marriage in one scene to a brassy, sassy number in a strip bar. This affects the pace and simply upsets the viewing experience as you never know how to feel.

So, the good points, and there are a few good things. As stated, the whole 'Be Italian' sequence is great (though Empire's Alistair Plumb reckon's Marshall "awkwardly [juggles between] black-and-white shots from Guido's childhood with colourful musical numbers") and there are some nice subtle references to Fellini's La Dolce Vita - such as a billboard at the start with the same poster design and Nicole Kidman's number 'Unusual Way' whereby the entire number is parodying the Anita-Ekberg-Trevi-Fountain section ... but with a lot less passion and eroticism. Though it includes a cat briefly. Bottom-line is, I'd take Anita Ekberg in the Trevi Fountain over Nicole Kidman singing next to the fountain any day in the week. A nice reference touch.

Daniel Day-Lewis is good ... but nothing when put next to his recent exploits as Bill the Butcher (Gangs of New York) and Daniel Plainview (There Will Be Blood). The main difference is the calmness and weak nature of the character. Though charming, Guido is uninspired and lacks a definitive focus and ambition. An artist who has reached their peak and doesn't know where to go next. Confused and continually making the wrong decision. As Tony Soprano said (I think it was his wife in the programme but its always assosciated with Tony) "More is lost by indecision than by wrong decision". Daniel Day-Lewis is a strong actor, especially at this point in his career, and his prescence on screen was powerful and dominant - completely at odds with the weak, 'at-an-artistic-loss' powerlessness of Guido Contini.

To finish, it is a visual feast but the pace was simply not fast enough - it introduced lots of characters, one at a time, without any real depth. It does 'evoke' the 60's Rome effectively (another nod to Plumbs review) but ultimately falls flat on the sultry, sexy, passionate and romantic associations with Fellini's Rome ... which kind-of isn't the 60's Rome Fellini created. We talk about 'being Italian', and though it looks it (the trailer, still, made it look incredible) it sure doesn't feel it. Oh, and in answer to the 'question' of Marshalls directing abilities - on this film alone, I say no.

Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

Now, gentlemen, around this time you could ask whether you're real or fictitious. I, however, think that's too easy, so I won't ask that yet.

Introduction

It has been quite a quiet few weeks - end of term, Christmas, Podcasts of importance ... many nights considering what would be and could be my Top Films of 2009 and, to be honest, the idea of deciding on a best film of the decade is too daunting to consider. Off the top of my head - and I am sure I will forget some - I am thinking The Village, The Lord of the Rings and, to go a bit international, I might throw in Amelie in there. Fact is, I decided as Best film of 2009 as Inglourious Basterds. It was tough - and for a while, Woody Allen's Vicky Cristina Barcelona got a look-in. I didn't want to go all pretentious and choose a film that, though good, I was unlikely to see again (Thats Anti-Christ and Kinatay out the window) and then again, I didn't want to choose anything too, though enjoyable, was nothing new or groundbreaking. I felt IB was a film that did break new ground - in Tarantino's unique way - while at the same time was highly enjoyable. Anyone who has had a listen to the podcast knows, Let the Right One In came close but this nabbed it mainly on the grounds that I didn't see its quality coming at all. The pulicity was mediocre but I left the cinema thoroughly entertained and enthralled about the future of Tarantino!

Opinion/Analysis

There are very few auteurs in cinema at the moment. A director who - from the first reel - has their name stamped all over the film. These directors often write the films also - possibly from other source material - but they make the story is their own. Terence Malick, M. Night Shyamalan, Pedro Almodovar and Roman Polanski are a few which come to mind. Quentin Tarantino is another. In fact, as soon as a character speaks, you can tell Tarantinos influence; there truly is no director working in Hollywood who can create a film in the same way. Even the flawed truly "Grindhouse-for-the-noughties" Deathproof has a script and film language that no other filmmaker can recreate.

In the first instance, it is worth clarifying that Inglourious Basterds is not a direct remake of Quel maledetto treno blindato of 1978. Tarantino's shares the title but this original assigns itself as a 'macaroni combat', following in the influence of 'spaghetti westerns'. (I never realised there was this whole "pasta-name genre" way of referring to every type of Italian film in the 70's... Where is Rigatoni-Horror? Farfalle-Sci-Fi? and Fusilli-Gangster?). Inglourious Basterds itself is clearly influenced by spaghetti westerns - Sergio-Leone full-screen shots of the eyes; Ennio Morricone score; the beautiful beginning that reeks of Once Upon a time in the West (Which, in turn, was influenced by John Ford and that legendary shot in The Searchers.)

In the introduction, we are introduced to one of the two lead male roles; Christoph Waltzs' Col. Landa - the 'Jew Hunter' (The second is Brad Pitt's Lt Aldo 'the Apache' Raine). Landa is an exceptional 'hunter' as he finds the family of our lead character Shosanna (Melanie Laurent), who manages to escape his grasp. Akin to 'The Bride' in Kill Bill, the film is about revenge. A revenge that Shosanna holds towards the Nazi's - and as she is hosting a premiere of Nations Pride at the cinema she has bequeathed from her auntie and uncle, it is the ideal opportunity to take them out. This premiere has in attendance (amongst many other high-ranking Nazi's) Goebbels and Hitler himself. Running alongside her revenge plot is also the Basterds plot to end the war. Raines is the leader of the Basterds and, through the assistance of the British Army, they also intend to use the premiere as an opportunity to knock-out the enemy. If they wipe all four leaders out, they end the war.

The more you watch the film, the more you realise how intricately paced Tarantino has made the film. Take the basement bar-sequence as Lt Hicox, Stiglitz and another basterd are meeting up with von Hammersmark. As soon as the basterds arrive, there is a subtle show of power building from one character to another - beginning at the moment the German-female headlocks a low-ranking German soldier. It estalishes her power over him, only to then be interrupted by a different soldier 'drinking-to' Wilhelm (this supercedes her power), this then leads to Wilhelm (who had just been championed, as drunk as he was, he was in a position of power), approaching Hicoxs' table to be very swiftly knocked down to size as Hicox and Stiglitz tell him to leave the group - as a viewer we are now clear in the knowledge that Hicox and Stiglitz are the most powerful characters in the room - the fact that Stiglitz defends Hicox implies Hicox stronger is than he ... until Hellstrom is revealed. We are wholly aware that it is he who assumes power over everyone - even pushing Stiglitz to the side, placing himself 'up there' on a par with Hicox and Stiglitz. This very gradually builds the tension - even though the German girl we first see, we know, has no real purpose except for beginning this play of power gradually. Prior to the German girl-on-guy head-lock, we see the quiet, shy exceptionally-weak French girl who is embarressed by playing the game with the German soliders, backing up this structure I believe Tarantino adhered to.

The sequence is finished as von Hammersmark kills Wilhelm - while everyone else lays dead. von Hammersmark, though she has parallels with Shosanna, she is nowhere near as cunning or strong as Shosanna - linking to another focus for analysis in the sequence whereby Landa kills Hammersmark. Upon using the shoe, in a Cinderella-like fashion, Landa leaps onto her, straddling her body and strangling her to death. We can assume there may be a pleasure in this - but it is also grotesque. Her legs flailing around the place as she gasps for her last breath. He is ashamed of her and what she has done. Hammersmark is a character with no pride for her country - she had no qualms about killing Wilhelm (even though Raines - we can assume through the conversation - hoped to keep him alive and even Hellstrom mentions when his life is at stake how Wilhelms life, to some extent is valuable. Hammersmark doesn't see it as valuable and kills him with no problem whatsoever - and she is clumsy enough to leave her shoe and go to 'the ball' (the cinema) anyway with such a lame excuse as to the mountain-climbing accident and bring along her 'Italian' friends. Aldo Raine even thought the meeting place in a basement was excpetionally bad planning. This lack of skill and clumsiness is everything Landa is not (note how he is exceptionally scathing towards Hammersmark when Raine asks about her) - and so he takes her life with a lot more gusto and makes the entire sequence that much more violent. Aldo Raine on the other hand is met with respect - Landa respects and admires him, thus saving his life.

To finish this analysis of these outstanding sequences, it is worth noting some other interesting aspects. When we see Churchill, he sits awkwardly in the room like a statue, with the bold red curtains draped behind him. This sequence looks almost dreamlike and, in my opinion, reminds me of David Lynch and even the dreams in Twin Peaks whether or not this was on purpose, I don't know, but it is an interesting correlation. Samuel L. Jackson also cameos as the voice over to a few sequences - which is nice to see. Sam Jackson is a must in any good Tarantino film. Top Three Tarantinos all now have Samuel L. Jackson in them (Reservoir Dogs would by 4th. place)

The end of the film has been spoken about a lot. I don't think, as Chris Hewitt says in Empire that Tarantino is 'playing God' by reimagining history the way he does, but Hewitt is right in stating that it is 'bold and outrageous'. Part of the reason that I think it is ground-breaking. Nick James, obviously, is a little harsher telling us how the film is a 'too-complex plot' replete with 'low-level black humour' as some sort of 'wish-fulfilment Jewish revenge fantasy'. Though, maybe someone with a Jewish background and potential links to the atrocities of Hitler may see it that way, I doubt the vast majority chanted 'yes!' as Hitler was killed. The reality is, whether he was killed or not - it doesn't matter. The sequence was black-humour as it should be. What matters is what happened afterwards - and thats the message of the film. What scars are left on the accomplices of Hitlers Nazi campaign? I feel that, at many points, the basterds are out of place - like a bunch of contemporary figures dropped into Nazi-occupied France. They are not making dreams real - they are raising questions about what is right and what we have missed. In any war, the soldiers are what they are - following orders - but they are still the killers who killed the enemy, they are still the man comitting the legal-crime. It reminds me of a Band of Brothers episode whereby a character has an argument with a baker when the baker argues he was unaware of the stench of dead bodies from a nearby concentration camp. The character is shouting at the baker - how on earth could he not have known? He was ignorant and he pretended he was not a part of it. We are all responsible and, one man being butchered on screen (Hitler...) and even the entire cinema burning down with all the Nazi officials inside, does not get rid of the 'stench' of horror that lingers. What happens to the people who 'got away' - like Landa - do they just mingle back into society post-war? An interesting, though completely different approach to the same moral question, is raised in The Reader ... who commits the crime and how can we, without killing the perpetrators, enact justice on those at fault? The scars are permanant for the victims, yet in the passing of time they fade into the back of the mind of the perpetrators.