MyFilmVault

Scene of the Year 2008

2009-02-27T10:42:00.000-08:00

See below : )

With the note: Yes, this is a scene that lasts, perhaps, 20 seconds at most, but the greatest scenes own no temporality, existing purely on their own plain. This still sends shivers down my spine, the perfect, stunning, shot of meaning, beauty and sense in a few, perfect, ephemeral, seconds.

2nd Watch

2009-02-26T13:05:00.000-08:00

The Dark Knight (2008)

In this, new, segment, sponsored by Ronseal, we watch a film a second time to judge whether it has longevity and, with that, whether it has lived up to the hype either we, or others, initially heralded it with. Perhaps it might also be a forum for us to challenge our own views on things we have welcomed, and things we have dismissed. So, I start with this, an effort destined to appear, in one form or another, in my end of year lists.

It is impossible to watch this without sadness since you are constantly reminded of what a truly great talent each and every one of us has lost in such tragic circumstances. It was not only a fitting tribute to Heath Ledger that he picked up Best Supporting Actor for his performance as the psychotic joker here, but a fully merited one. As things stand, Ledger, too, will be my number one male performer of the year, an opinion that has only been enhanced through my recent second viewing of The Dark Knight. Ledger's astonishing Joker is a sublime character and a delicious villain. You feel the revulsion towards him of every character he approaches in the film, good or bad (or neither or both), apart from the Batman, intrugingly, a deliberate touch, surely, on Ledger's part, on Christian Bale's (Batman) and on director Christopher Nolan's. Malevolent, driven, but certainly not mad - the Joker has everything planned down to the last, anarchic detail. Perhaps there is order in anarchy after all. There is a message here, isn't there? Even anarchy requires planning of the highest order. The Joker represents both the darker side of the world and the darker side of human nature, the yearning in each of us to break out into disorder and chaos from our rigid, computerised lives, but unable to do so without allowing the world to burn in immorality, injustice and confusion. The Joker doesn't care about any of this, of course, and we are given tantalising, contradictory, hints as to why. Is there, after all, some tragic humanness, some awful unresolved, deep trauma behind it all? The hideous scars, bejewled by distorted and frightening make-up, are an all too constant reminded to the Joker of whatever trauma it is he is unable to face up to. A deep character indeed. Is there any 'deeper' villain in film history? That I can even ask the question is a measure of Ledger's achievement. The film belongs to him, and it always would have done regardless of the tragic events that were to befall him before the film's opening. There is some order, some meaning, some history, some reason, behind the Joker. And it is a touch of genius that we never see it.

Of course, Ledger is not alone. Nolan has assembled a tantalising cast to support the film. Bale is a good Batman, and, like his character, is in the shadows here. Caine and Freeman provide perfect, and very different foils, and Gary Oldman is full of an earthy humanity as Comissioner Gordon in a role different from those he usually plays (perhaps, for a lesser director, Oldman would have been the Joker and Ledger, Gordon). Maggie Gyllenhaal is a great improvement on Katie Holmes and is, bravely again, given an interesting and early demise which contributes hugely to the story arc of two major characters.

There are two disappointing factors. The first, a major one, is that Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent is not given another film to let his fascinating portrayal of Harvey's tragic story arc come full circle in the extra cinematic space it deserves. The second, a minor one, is that Cillian Murphy's Scarecrow doesn't return for more than a single, tantalising, scene. A shame, but a minor quibble. Dent's demise, on the other hand, comes too quickly, as does his transformation. At least the make-up doesn't look as bad and actually holds up better under the microscope of a second viewing.

I haven't, yet, said anything about the film itself. So many high points and very few lows. The major low is the unbelievably irritating digitisation of Bale's voice. So many people I know have commented on this it is becoming almost scandelous that it was not picked up in first screenings and changed. Aside from that, it is very difficult to formulate criticisms. The action is well judged and well paced and punctuated by interesting scene after interesting scene, from the very first, during which the Joker's gang gradually bump one another off as the result of the clever machinations and planning of their devious and cunning boss. A scene towards the end (captured in the picture above) where the Joker, a passenger in a squad car, is driven around the city, hanging out of the window, with a beautiful gloaming falling behind him to near-darkness and the quiet silence of hollow solitude hanging and resonating deeply in the coming night air. It is a stunning moment, 20 or so seconds to make your hair stand on end, and is my scene of the year. It is, again, a testament to Nolan, and to cinematographer Wally Pfister, that a big-budget actioner such as this pays such attention to cinematography. Credit to Ridley Scott's Hannibal here, one of the pioneers of such an approach (I remember a similarly beautiful, silent and still, moment in that film where, amidst carnage and terror, neon police lights cross a suspension bridge with great delicacy and lightness of touch). It is hard to describe how such a seemingly meaningless moment can have such an effect on you, and, indeed, to describe the kind of effect that it actually has, but, if you can bottle meaning, it is there, in that moment, as the Joker parades deadly amidst Gotham's twilight.

There are other sublime moments too - the Joker's face as he realises he has underestimated humanity and the essence of his plan has failed (Ledger deserved the Oscar for this moment alone); the entire last set piece is brilliantly done and, as I wrote in my original review, a priceless testament to the intersubjective character to ethical truth; the scene where Freeman's Lucius Fox offers his resignation, and its sister scene, some half an hour later, when he voicelessly withdraws it; the Hong-Kong grab; the Joker at the party. The Dark Knight is just full of these moments and it never feels a moment too long, or like it is dragging. And not to forget the great lines (e.g. "I wanna drive") and the great dialogue (particularly the moments where the Joker offers up his contradictory histories, a great touch, effortlessly delivered by Ledger).

As you might have guessed, the Dark Knight's grade is going to improve on second viewing. Certainly not an easy effect to acheive and, particularly, for a superhero film. There is so much to enjoy with this, the performances, the cinematgoraphy, the script, the dialogue, the scenes, the set-pieces, the direction, the Joker...And there is potential for it to improve for further viewings, so vast this universe is, and so deep the character who inhabit it are. Perhaps those reviews that acclaim this to have changed movie-going forever are premature - it is no Jaws - but this is still an incredibly original, brave and beautiful way of pulling punters in through the doors. Incredibly impressive and improved by a second viewing

A-

Not to mention, of course, those last, great lines:

Because he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark knight

I've Loved You So Long - Il y a longtemps que Je t'aime (2008)

2009-02-23T14:18:00.000-08:00

Three 2008 films in a row. Unbelievable. So what did I make of this, a lyrical French film about Juliette (a marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas), returning to live with her sister Lea having been released from prison 15 years after murdering her son? Beloved by critics, including my colleague, though not by Oscar, this didn't quite manage to inspire me as it has others, despite good performances from the leads.

There is no doubt that this is Scott Thomas' film and my colleague is right to feel indignant at the lack of nomination, though, sadly, this is what I've come to expect from the Academy. That said, Elsa Zylberstein, who plays the sister, delivers a more understated, though no less compelling performance. There are some interesting male efforts here too, particularly from Laurent Grevill, as Michel. But this is a feminine film, drawing on tender, emotional, themes of sisterhood, belonging and togetherness and it is right that the two leads dominate proceedings.

A slow- burning film, this still never fails to engage it's audience, largely down to the sublime performances. Juliette is a very human character, invested with huge emotional and psychological depth by an excellent script. This is a complex character, but Scott Thomas is more than up to the task. Although you can catch her English accent in places, this is nicely, and very plausibly, explained away and that can, besides, hardly be a criticism coming from someone with as dodgy French as mine. And Lea is an equally deep character, with just as much of a history and with just as many issues, though they are naturally different and perhaps not as insurmountable. In short, this feels a truly human drama, full of human life, struggle, beauty and redemption, many of the themes that are present in films of the highest order.

I would, however, urge caution about putting this in the very top rung of cinematic achievement. It's good, and I enjoyed it, but, ultimately, it failed to inspire me that it was a work of genuine greatness. There are a few reasons for this. Firstly, what is an incredible, show-stopping, last scene (for the brilliant emotion-fueled exchange between the two sisters) is dulled by a shocking piece of editing leading up to it, which can be put down to little more than laziness. Unfortunately, for me at least, it had a negative effect. Secondly, as good as Scott Thomas is, I couldn't fully believe the historical actions of her character as explained in the final reel, which left another slightly bitter taste. And thirdly and finally, I couldn't help but feel that the bravery of the film-makers ebbed away slightly towards the end and they didn't quite have the bottle to make a fully empathetic film about characters who do bad, even unforgivable, things. This remains generally uncharted territory, the latest final taboo, for film-making. It will be a spectacular, epoch-defining, film that crosses those boundaries, but this isn't it.

Perhaps I shouldn't criticise this for being something it isn't and should just have enjoyed it for what it is. But I genuinely think I did. And, ultimately, my enjoyment was spoilt by the fact that this, good as it is, didn't quite deliver on all its promises.

B

The Mist (2008)

2009-02-22T09:36:00.000-08:00

Warning: SPOILERS
Frank Darabont directs Stephen King story means form. This combination has brought us top-10-film-of-all-time The Shawshank Redemption and the very well received Green Mile (which I haven't seen sadly). So can this, a brave 18-rated horror film about a mysterious mist which hides all kinds of hideous and demonic creatures, live up to past form?

Yes and no. There are flashes of brilliance - and great bravery - here but, ultimately, the film disappoints, which is not, however, to say that it's bad. I hate to do reviews which include spoilers, but I can't avoid it here since vital elements of the plot and story impact heavily on my judgement of the film, so apologies for that and, if you're interested in seeing this, stop reading now.

It's a really good premise - most of the action centres on a group which have been trapped in a supermarket by the enveloping mist. And much of the film's emotional and psychological arc centres around the idea that the greatest danger to humanity is humanity itself. Few things are spared here by Darabont, not humanity, not milataryism, not mob justice, not technological development and definitely not religion. The message is loud and clear - all these things, and more, are responsible for the messes human beings get themselves into. And, in the Mist, they are in the middle of one big heap of a mess, which just gets worse and worse the longer the film goes.

There are some great set-pieces (a scene in a Chemists as the group looks for vital medicines) is taught, frightening, tense and brilliantly put together. Others are less convincing - particularly an early-ish one in the garage at the back of the supermarket which displays very poor CGI that, regrettably, impacts on the film's believability and the brilliance of some stunning and powerful later images.

Still, the temporal centre of the film is gripping and tense, helped by some believable characters and good emotional symbiosis between lead character and ordinary Joe David Drayton (Thomas Jane) and his son Billy (Nathan Gamble). Two excellent contributions by a terrifying Marcia Gay Harden and previous MyFilmVault-lister Andre Braugher (wonderfully obnoxious and drenched in so many of the bad, individualised, aspects of modernity) might well result in spots in my end of year lists. Possibly.

Before the last 30 seconds this is possibly A grade material, but certainly worthy of a B+ and then the unforgivable happens. I cannot stand films which suddenly betray their own landscape of believability. It is absolutely paramount for horror and fantasy films of this type that they inhabit a consistent universe for their running time. Believability is contingent. If a horror film, or a fantasy film, is asking you to suspend belief in the everyday reality before your eyes, it is, then, to go a step too far to ask you to suspend belief in that realm of believability it itself has fictionalised. I apologise for the mouthful, but horror films live and die by this. And the Mist, ultimately, dies.

After escaping with his son and a few others, in a small 4 by 4, Drayton pilots the jeep through a wonderfully eerie, smoky, wilderness, stunningly captured and genuinely gut-wrenching. As ever more strange creatures appear, and as the needle on the petrol indicator slowly falls, you get this awful aching sense right in your gut not only that everything is not going to be okay, but that it cannot be. This is A grade stuff, polished, deep and highly effective. The Mist has enveloped America, if not the world. Finally, the fuel runs out. Drayton takes his gun, with four remaining bullets, shoots his son and the other two passengers to spare them, quite rightly, a fate worse than death, then leaves the jeep to call on the creatures to take him. Then the Mist disappears with a load of military guys following behind it with tanks and flame-throwers. I almost threw the remote through the TV in anger and disappointment. I felt totally cheated. I'd invested 2 hours of my life, caught up in this tension, only to be hit with this incredibly brutal ending which, yet, made no sense according to the film's own universe. Absurd. Utterly absurd. There is no way this mist could have lifted so quickly without Drayton hearing all the tanks, flamethrowers and military planes etc, not to mention other problems (why didn't he at least try to look round for other cars to syphon petrol off - they pass hundreds on the way). Completely gutting. It was a brilliant and brave ending without the absurd extra 30 seconds which revealed the 'twist', which made the whole thing, including Drayton's sacrifice, just seem completely trivial and pointless. This exemplifies everything I mean - good films (like, for example, REC and Cloverfield) are so effective at collapsing believability they don't leave you asking these kind of questions because, simply, these questions don't matter. The film just exists, perfectly and exquisitely, on its own plain.

Also, Jane is just not good enough an actor to pull this off and his effort at the end (which had been perfectly commendable up to this point) is as lamentable as the situation his character finds himself in. Hugely disappointing. What should be lauded as brave, innovative and good film-making has to, instead, be marked down as a disappointment.

This is such a shame as there are great things about the Mist, but it is impossible to recommend a film that leaves you feeling so deeply frustrated. It's still better than the average, so I won't let my disappointment get the better of me and settle on a B-. Like The Happening, a great concept, but a delivery that is ultimately flawed.

B-

The Happening (2008)

2009-02-21T02:31:00.000-08:00

Surely not? Surely even I couldn't like this, M. Night Shyamalan's latest effort, about a 'happening' that suddenly causes people to commit suicide, which has been universally pilloried and castigated by all (it's currently at 19% on Rotten Tomatoes)? Could I? Could I?

Well the short answer is yes, and that brings me onto my rant, which I might as well get out of the way first. Yes, this has its problems, but I fail to see how it has been brutalised as strongly as it has. I personally feel that it has to do with Shyamalan. Here is an Asian-American film-maker daring to write and direct his own movies, based on interesting original personal material and he gets castigated for it. What would you prefer instead? Ten-a-penny Brett Ratboy's helming live-actioner after live-actioner on monstrous budgets, with inflated egos and salaries without a shred of originality anywhere? Being original means being brave and sometimes it doesn't come off as it should do - as here. But I'd rather salute someone for daring to have a go than pillory them for getting it wrong from time to time. More than any of this, you can tell that Shyamalan just loves making films, just loves telling stories and has also clearly understood the vast potential the moving image has for getting messages across to mass audiences. Again, I think the few who dare to speak up about something important (whether that's to them or to us all), rather than tow the line, deserve our applause and admiration. They are a rare breed.

Anyway, the film. As I say, it focuses on a small group (Mark Wahlberg, Zooey Deschanel, John Leguizamo and Ashlyn Sanchez) who are fleeing some kind of natural disaster, which causes people to commit suicide in the American Northwest. Unusually for a Shyamalan film the performances are fairly poor, and Deschanel, so good in All the Real Girls, is perhaps the biggest disappointment, though there are still signs she will go on to great things. Leguizamo is the stand-out, such as there is one, and Wahlberg sleep-walks his way through.

For sure, the story is at times preposterous - it is implied that trees talk to one another through the wind which carries 'the happening' - but this kind of thing is not unheard of in Hollywood films, including those like The Fog and The Mist (review forthcoming) which have been heralded as classics or near-classics. And there's a nice moment of self-effacement as Walhberg's character catches himself talking to a house-plant. Critics just seem to have missed this kind of thing, as they always do with Shyamalan, who clearly has the ability to take the piss out of himself and has a nice, sensitive, ear for humour.

The end is also rushed and unsatisfactory and adds another layer of unfortunate implausibility to the already fairly implausible proceedings, meaning that this is, in sum, a far from perfect film.

All this said, none of it can take away from the fact that I enjoyed it. And that is what I want most of all from a film. Is this not what everyone wants? Great films are great because they are great at entertaining. There's little more to it than that, or there should be, but pretentiousness seems to demand something more for some reason. Okay, this is far from being a great film, but it's still a perfectly good one and I've certainly seen far worse and far worse that has been far better received for little reason other than prejudice or arrogance.

I saw a director's screening with Shyamalan when The Village came out and was very impressed with him as someone who loves making movies, loves telling stories and understands the importance of the reception of moving images. There is no doubt that Shyamalan pushes my cinematic buttons and I don't see any problem with that. Yes, he can get preachy - this is even more so than the Village, but, again, I'd rather be challenged by a film than sleep-walk my way through it. And I happen to think that Shyamalan is right, we should all be thinking more about our relationship to the environment. There are many things about nature, and the way nature works, we still simply don't understand - I was just the other day reading about the sharp increase in the number of young people being diagnosed with allergies which no one can explain. Of course, there will be an explanation, and it won't be as far-fetched as Shyamalan's here, but nature is a mysterious, and unforgiving, mistress and this inevitably opens the way for some interesting and innovative film-making. The Happening makes a lot of Einstein's interesting comment that, if the honeybee was wiped out, humanity would be dead within 4 years. And the honeybee is, in fact, dying, and at alarming rates. Therefore this is something we should be thinking about.

There are some awful moments here, but there are some striking and startling images as well - Shyamalan hasn't forgotten how to shock and how to scare - and the whole thing is perfectly watchable and enjoyable as a novel take on the disaster movie. Shyamalan is someone who has the courage to stand up, speak his mind, and challenge an audience. He fluffs his lines here and stammers through on occasion, but that does not mean he should be subjected to the kind of ridicule which might silence him in the future. Shyamalan will be back and those who demand challenging and innovative film-making, and are even prepared to accept that it may go wrong from time to time, will be all the happier for that and cinema, as a whole, all the richer.

B-

Joaquin Phoenix: Certifiable

2009-02-19T03:25:00.000-08:00

Bit late with this - caught it a few days ago and been meaning to post here. Definitely worth sticking with the entire thing. The word is that Phoenix is faking but, regardless, this is hilarious to watch.

Life of Pi

2009-02-19T03:15:00.000-08:00

Our film wishlist has not been updated in a while (practically ever) but even though we have been too lazy to add titles to it, the powers that be have been working hard to remove one. The Life of Pi is finally heasing into production with one of the greatest living directors at the helm - step forward Mr Ang Lee. Read Matt's take on the book and why it would make a great film here.

And finally, here's the story.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

2009-02-18T16:32:00.000-08:00

13 Oscar nominations. 13? THIRTEEN????

How is that possible?

Admittedly, some of these are deserved but others are most assuredly not. This is complete Oscar bait stuff - an adaptation of an F Scott Fitzgerald short story, it is lengthy, weighty and expensive. It runs the gamut of emotions - or at least tried to elicit these from the watching masses - tears, laughter, joy - you're supposed to fall in love Benjamin and Daisy and 1920s and 30s America. I genuinely had a sinking feeling within 30 seconds - I realised quickly that this was another Forest Gump/Big Fish style shaggy dog story, and that is historically not a type of film I've enjoyed at all. I'm afraid I didn't enjoy this either.

Nominations that are completely deserved:

Make-up & Special F/X - the only reason to stay with this interminable thing is to see whether the make-up crew and the special f/x department can make Brad Pitt look 20 again. Well, as it turns out, they can - and very convincing it is too. Kudos to them for that - have a well deserved Oscar nomination.

Best Score - Alexandre Desplat is a very talented composer and, while not his best work, it is of sufficient quality to merit awards notice. I probably wouldn't have had it in my top 5, but it would not have been a million miles away.

Art Direction - Probably just about deserved, although a win would be a real stretch when you have The Fall and Hellboy II: The Golden Army released in the same year.

Nominations that are probably undeserved but that I can handle:

Best Actor - Brad Pitt is not a particularly strong actor. The guy is incredibly good looking and I think this helps mask any deficiencies in charisma and screen presence. He is never the most nuanced of actors, and his only previous Oscar notice came for an exaggerated, tic-riddled mental patient where nuance went out the window. Well, to give him his dues, this is probably the best thing he has ever done - there's a subtlety and restraint (and he's not so restrained his comatose a la Jesse James) to his performance that makes it worth noticing and in many other years a nomination would have been deserved. Just not in a year when Rourke, Penn, Langella, DiCaprio and Jenkins gave far superior work though.

Cinematography - Seen better, seen worse. Presumably people remember the ballet scene where Daisy is silhouetted. At the time I was watching this I actually thought, maybe this could have been lit a little better. And in any case, The Fall is clearly the best cinematography of the year by something like a zillion miles.

Nominations that are completely undeserved but not catastrophically bad:

Costumes - Bleh. Who cares. Why is this even a category? Only 20% of the films made are even competing for this award. As if would ever go to something contemporary like American Beauty or The Departed or Crash (all of which won Best Pic.) They always lavish attention on period pieces and let's be honest, when was the last time you came out of a film and thought - "great costumes!"

Best Supporting Actress - What did Taraji P. Henson do that was noteworthy? Anything? Anything at all?

Astonishingly unfair, undeserved and embarrassing nominations that border on clinical insanity:

Best Picture: I detest pictures that for some reason decide they need to bookend and punctuate a story with a pointless modern day setting. Think Titanic or Saving Private Ryan. What's the point? It is always the weakest aspect of the film and serves no purpose. This one is punctuated by a masturbatory, death-bed, hurricane Katrina setting. I see no point to this other than to get Cate Blanchett and Oscar nom for playing a 90 year old and even that didn't work. And if there was some symbolic relevance to setting it the day before Katrina, then clearly it wasn't necessary since the original short was written in 1921, and I dare say was a much finer piece of work than this.

Best Editing - What editing? I dread to think how long the first cut ran but if this is a well edited film then I look like a 20 year old Brad Pitt. If it had been half the length, maybe there would have been an enjoyable film there, but at 166 minutes it is at least an hour too long. Any editor with balls would have told Fincher the whole Katrina thing was getting canned anyway.

Best Adapted Screenplay: - Take a novella and bloat it so immensely, you make Forest Gump look like a live action short. The aforementioned modern day setting is indulgent and completely ruinous.

Best Director - I am actually a huge David Fincher fan but this is so self-indulgent I cannot believe this is the guy that directed Se7en, The Game and Zodiac. Very disappointing stuff from someone I greatly admire. Even his previous misses like Panic Room and, dare I say, Fight Club, had a huge amount of directorial verve and originality. This is just Forest Gump lite.

Grade: D

Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

2009-02-15T12:44:00.000-08:00

What more is there to say about Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire, a film which has wowed audiences, critics and awards ceremonies in the early part of 2009? Well, hopefully, a little bit otherwise this review will be a little pointless. Nominated for 10 Oscars, including some love for Boyle in the director's category, does this deserve the praise which has been heaped on it?

The answer is yes and no. Yes, because this is a terrific film, thoroughly enjoyable and intense throughout (except for perhaps a 15 minute or so period of drift), though it perhaps falls short of being the absolute classic it has been heralded as.

So, in case anyone needs reminding, Slumdog Millionaire tells the story of Jamal Malik (Dev Patel), who ends up on the Hindi version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire. Accused of cheating because he answers the questions correctly, Jamal is interviewed by the police, during which it becomes clear why he knows the answers to the questions he is faced by...

This is a brilliantly put together film. Reminiscent of my favorite film of all time, Ikiru, in the way it narrates the story backwards. Slumdog stands as proof of the emotional effectiveness of focalising the drama in this way - as opposed to the traditional, linear, narrative fare of much mainstream cinema. Telling the story - effectively - backwards just seems to be a highly effective way of scoring emotional points and hitting the right psychological notes. This is done very effectively here.

I think I would echo my colleague's comments on the lead performances. Dev Patel and (the absolutely stunning) Freida Pinto are perfectly decent but should not, in reality, trouble our end of year lists (as they haven't my colleague's) nor, for that matter, any other, though, of course, far less prestigious, awards ceremonies. The stand out performance here is undoubtedly provided by Anil Kapoor, who plays Prem Kumar, the host of Millionaire who somehow manages to convey a character even more obnoxious than Chris Tarrant. Kapoor's performance bristles with energy and presence and he produces a very effective counter-vision to Jamal's wide-eyed innocence. The rest of the performances are all fine, though nothing special. That said, perhaps Ankur Vikal, as abusive and sleazy local hood Maman, deserves special mention - although I did feel that the 'gangster' sideshow was often superfluous to the film.

Despite the positives I was left feeling that I didn't enjoy this quite as much as I should have done and I would certainly question how well it would stand up to a second viewing. And I don't think that was all down to the people in the row in front, and in the row behind, giving the answers to the fictional questions on the gameshow and getting them wrong in all cases. When the geezer in the row behind said "D'Artagnan" for the last one, he almost got a faceful of what was left of our popcorn. In the end, though, the film just didn't resonate quite as it should have done, despite being fully enjoyable and generally satisfying. Further, there is enough here for many to enjoy and I don't recall, yet, hearing anyone say a bad word about it. Recommended but, in the end, perhaps only just.

B+

Movie Years 2008

2009-02-08T12:02:00.001-08:00

My top 5s for 2008 are complete. Click on the logo!

More 2008 Notes

2009-02-07T09:33:00.001-08:00

Vicky Cristina Barcelona - Stunning. Best Woody Allen in ages, maybe ever. Terrific dialogue and the wonderful Spanish setting is like another character in this excellent ensemble piece. A sheer delight from start to finish. A+

Frozen River - Saw it for Melissa Leo's Oscar nom and she is certainly deserving, trouble is I can't help feeling she took Kristen Scot Thomas' spot. You're never exactly hard pushed to guess where the film is going, but it gets there with no shortage of skill. A great debut from Courtney Hunt. B+

Wendy and Lucy - Michelle Williams stars as Wendy, and gives a decent performance, but I have to say I found her character fairly irritating. She makes a series of illogical decisions and I had little sympathy for her, although this is once again a well made film and a good debut by a female director. C+

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - AKA Forrest Gump 2, and it might be wort noting that I hated that film too. Tedious, much much much much much much much too long self-indulgent wank. I love David Fincher's work but this is borderline unforgivable. 13 Oscar nominations??? Pah. (More to follow) D

Let the Right One In - Swedish horror film riding high in the IMDb charts, and it ain't bad. It's not the best horror ever, in fact it isn't even the best horror this year but it is the best Swedish horror film I've ever seen. Actually it is the only Swedish horror film I've ever seen - it it is nicely shot and atmospheric, but found slightly wanting in terms of real suspense or intrigue. B-

The Fall - Spectacularly beautiful film - amongst the most visually pleasing I've ever seen in fact. The cinematography and art direction are outrageously good. It proves there no excuse for poor visuals as this was all accomplished with a very modest budget - the makers of low budget films everywhere should take note and be embarrassed with their half-hearted efforts. A-

Doubt - Enjoyable Meryl Streep - Philip Seymour Hoffman double act. The 10 minute long scene featuring a tempestuous confrontation between them is wonderful. Nicely written although slightly irritating direction with director John Patrick Shanley mistakenly believing tilting the camera 30 degrees adds something to the shot. There's a reason no-one else does that John. B+

Christian Bale Going Nuts

2009-02-03T04:30:00.000-08:00

Terminator 4 is my 10th most anticipated movie of the year and clearly Bale is taking it very seriously. One thing that struck me though was his weird pseudo American accent. Last time I heard him speak he definitely had a pretty normal British accent - maybe he was screaming in character?

Quick Notes

2009-02-01T10:07:00.000-08:00

Valkyrie - the makers of Valkyrie commit that most unforgivable of sins - their film is so dull that I couldn't care less whether Hitler lived or died. Tom Cruise is Colonel Von Stauffenberg - a soldier selected to assassinate Hitler and overthrow his government. Sounds like a great premise for a film but even a solid director like Bryan Singer, someone who certainly knows how to craft a thriller, can't eke any thrills out of such plodding material. Sure it looks handsome, and is nicely photgraphed, but much of it borders on tedium. C-

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist - the quirkiest title of the year in a self-consciously quirky film - think Juno, but far less successful. I don't mind quirky. I liked Juno as much as the next man (as long as the next man isn't Matt.) But if I'm honest I was fairly irritated halfway through the opening credits, which is a pretty impressive going. The cast are all likeable but the script just didn't do them justice. C-

Defiance - another WWII film - the third of 2008 - and the third WWII film of '08 that blows hard. It's dull, unconvincing and... well isn't that bad enough? Ed Zwick isn't everyone's favourite director but I actually liked The Last Samurai a lot. This is the sort of worthy bore-fest that makes him hard to defend though. D

Revolutionary Road - stunning Sam Mendes film (goes without saying) that was criminally overlooked by those fine folk that nominate the Oscars. The only actor to get a nomination in this terrific film was on screen for about 3 minutes. DiCaprio and Winslet are wonderful and deserved better. Winslet's nomination for her role in The Reader instead of for this superior effort is inexplicable. Review to follow. A

The Wire, Season One

2009-01-30T08:30:00.000-08:00

You may well have heard accolades like "greatest television show ever" bestowed on this series, which not that many people have heard of because, like all the best America tele, it got shoved on to a channel which no one watches, not everyone has, and at a difficult time of day. Just like, in fact, creator David Simon's previous show, The Corner and many other great shows that have come our way from across the pond (Seinfeld, Arrested Development, even arguably Curb, the list goes on).

But suddenly everyone has started talking about The Wire, quite possibly because, having completed its 5th season, it has finished. Recommended to me by a few friends recently, I began catching up with this from season one. I owe my friends some serious beers for the recommendation.

Condensed over 13, hour-long, episodes, The Wire tells the story of a complex series of murder and drug-related investigations undertaken by a special unit of the Baltimore PD to try and take down a local drug baron by the name of Avon Barksdale, and his crew.

I was into it by the end of the first episode, to a degree and depth no first episode has ever engaged me before. The story is a little slow to get going, but the brilliant, deeply-drawn, characters drive the first few episodes on at an incredibly rapid and soulful pace, to the extent that I find myself watching the DVD clock shoot towards the hour mark at light speed desperately hoping it would slow down. Around Episode 5, this simply becomes the greatest series of television I have ever seen and sustains that level of interest, depth of character, engagement and general, all-round, brilliance right to the last reel of Episode 13, which leaves you gagging, and I do mean gagging, for Series 2. Like a book you can't put down, the watchability of this exceeds even the greatest, most engaging, television of the last decade (which, for me, constitutes, in terms of drama, the first seasons of Lost and 24).

Although the drama and the story are both utterly compelling, the best thing about this is it's characters. Alternating between being heroes and villains from one moment to the next, there is not one element, not one pore on any of their skins, that feels hackneyed and cliched. Again, this even surpasses season 1 of Lost, which did such a brilliant and, in a way, very original take on characterisation, with the layers of humanness that lie under the interesting skins of the Wire's characters. The main protagonist is the sublime McNulty (a brilliant Dominic West), an incredibly passionate cop, who likes the odd drink and who drives the investigation with his passion and verve, which comes to infect all of those around him who start of not wanting to be there. McNulty makes more enemies than Ashley Cole along the way, but it is relentlessly compelling. However, the other characters are so equally brilliant, he is not left holding, or even driving, the show in any way. McNulty's partner Bunk is hilarious and just as fun, but with a very deep soul as well, the chief, Daniels, grows into the series like a sunflower stretching up to the sky in summer. Kima, who grows close to McNulty, is perhaps the least well understood of the characters and you sense there is a lot more to come from her as well. The actress (Sonja Sohn) is spectacularly good as well. There are others, too, particularly Lester, who, like the Chief, grows into the series and will surely play a more prominent role in the series to come.

Then there is the other side, the drug dealers. Only, with the Wire, you can never quite be sure just whose side you are supposed to be on as heroes and villains lurk in every corner switching from one to the next just like the human beings they are. The main protagonist on this 'side' is D'Angelo Barksdale (Larry Gilliard Jr.), nephew to drug baron Avon, whose conscience is torn by the brutal, tormenting, world into which he was born and the deeds it compels him to carry out. D'Angelo is probably the deepest of all the characters (though that's like saying Pele was the greatest Brazilian footballer of all time in a team that comprised (say) Sokrates, Garrincha, Jairzinho, Ronaldo and 100m man Kaka) and every scene he is involved in is fascinating and you are just never sure which way he's going to go in any given situation. Avon (Wood Harris) is truly scary, one of the most frightening villains depicted on screen for years. Harris is brilliant and invests Avon with a ocean-deep sense of intensity, drive, power and strength. The same goes for Avon's lieutenant Stringer Bell (Idris Elba).

Further brilliant characters flit around the outskirts, meaning that no scene seems superfluous, padding or meaningless. As Anthony Burgess wrote about The Old Man and The Sea , every word tells a story and there is not a single word too many. Drug-addict turned informant Bubbles just tries to survive in a world you know he isn't made for and, again, more of his story waits to be told. Omar, a local rival to Avon, is almost as scary, but more sensitive, humorous and layered.I can't mention every character, otherwise this review will go on for a year. Wikipedia has a useful brief summary on every character for those interested.

The other sublime thing about this show is its depth of focus on the reality of inner city American life and ghettoisation. The far-reaching and very real impact of inequality and deprivation (including oppression, racism and ghettoisation) are here laid bare in all their wretchedness. These characters are forced to make choices and decisions the more fortunate of us simply never have to contemplate facing. If the world is to change, the beginnings of those changes will have to be felt here. But what has changed? This is the world Bobby Womack, in Across 110th Street, Grandmaster Flash and the Furious 5, in The Message and, in film, Charles Burnett, were warning the world about already 30 years ago. People can only take so much and one day the grapes of wrath will sow the seeds of revolution on these streets. This is a brutal and unforgiving world and, ironically, one which makes for a relentlessly compelling season of perfect drama.

Just go and buy this, you cannot possibly regret it. I'm going to return to Season 1 time and time again, especially whenever I feel the call to revolution. It immediately has a longevity way beyond that of most TV seasons, even the most brilliant. Just superb, brilliant and beautiful. TV cannot, and will not, get any better than this.

A+

Cher in Batman 3?!

2009-01-26T15:04:00.000-08:00

Apparently the rumours are not true, but I'm intrigued by the fact that there were rumours in the first place!

Oscar Reaction

2009-01-22T15:35:00.000-08:00

4/5 on my predictions for Best Picture, although that wasn't that difficult. I get credit for guessing The Dark Knight would be snubbed, despite what the vocal fanboys were saying. Sadly I didn't predict the film that would do the upsetting, but then neither did anyone else. That film has a lowly 60% fresh rating on rottentomatoes and got an even lowlier D from me when I saew it atwo weeks ago. Surely the worst film to get a Best Picture nomination for a while.

Kristin Scott Thomas missed out. A travesty.

Brad Pitt got into the line up. I await Benjamin Button with baited breath but Pitt has not once shown he is capable of doing anything that would merit Oscar attention (yes I know he's been nominayted once before) and one of the performances that was in the mix was from the brilliant Leonardo DiCaprio so I am suspicious that he is worthy, but we shall see.

Happy for Richard Jenkins for The Visitor, happy for Mickey Rourke, although his nomination was nailed on, and pleased that the American votes have a bit more intelligence than the Brits - the Slumdog love did not translate into another inexplicable nomination for the perfectly pleasant, but card-board cut-out-esque Dev Patel.

Confused as to why anyone thinks In Bruges is worthy of anything other than a Razzie nom.

Oscar nominations tomorrow

2009-01-21T15:28:00.000-08:00

So I've looked into my crystal ball and it tells me the following shall be nominated for Best Picture...

Slumdog Millionaire
Frost/Nixon
Milk
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
and, controversially, Wall*E

Everyone else is saying The Dark Knight for that last slot. I have two problems with that. One: it's a comic book film, and however well received it was, comic book films don't get nominations. And two: it wasn't that good. I think a lone directing nom for Nolan is as likely as a best picture nom for the film, but of course I'm not exactly going to be surprised if the Bat does sneak in. I personally would like to see The Wrestler (almost certainly my film of 08 - review imminent) make it but alas it seems Mickey Rourke will be flying the flag on his own.

The other nom I am looking out for is Kristin Scott Thomas for Best Actress. Never did I think it would be possible for her to miss out but it seems that it might be. The favoured five seem to be...

Winslet, Streep, Hathaway, Leo and Jolie.

I cannot believe it, but KST may miss out yet again. A real shame.

All will be revealed at insane o-clock Pacific time in the States (around 1pm in the UK I think.)

Australia

2009-01-18T08:22:00.000-08:00

"Baz, you know that last act that you worked so hard on and thought would be the perfect way to end it?"

"You mean the segment featuring the Japanese bombing of the Northern Territory - that hugely important cultural event that was such a powerful event in the lives of the people we're portraying here, and ultimately shaped our nation? The segment we spent 3 months shooting, sweat blood and tears over and spent millions on."

"Yeah that's the one."

"What about it?"

"Well - how can I put this - it's shit."

read the rest

Slumdog Millionaire

2009-01-14T11:05:00.000-08:00

Despite continued success and solid reviews for just about everything he has ever done (The Beach excepted) Boyle has never made that transition into the big time. I expect that is about to change. Oscar success seems imminent. People are knocking on his door. He's the hot new thing in cinema and all thanks to an obscure, low budget, star-less Indian film about a boy on a quiz show.

read the rest

The Reader

2009-01-13T12:26:00.000-08:00

One half of Kate Winslet's double Golden Globe success from Saturday landed here a couple of weeks ago and I caught up with it upon its release so it is about time I reviewed it. Whilst I'm happy for Winslet - there are very few, if any, actresses working today that are as overdue as she is in terms of big awards - one can't help wishing that she was being rewarded for something truly outstanding. Perhaps Revolutionary Road, which she won the lead actress award for on Sunday, may feature that performance. The Reader certainly doesn't.

Read more

Che: Part One

2009-01-11T10:01:00.000-08:00

I knew very little of Che Guevara before I saw the first part of Steven Soderbergh's documentary-like take on the man, and now that I've seen it there is one one thing I know for absolute certain: there's absolutely no way in the world I'll be watching part 2.

Read more

Twilight

2009-01-11T09:18:00.000-08:00

Stephanie Myers' vampire trilogy is the hot new cult thing amongst teens and Twilight is the first film in what is almost certainly been an already greenlit series. I suspect the they've got the green light for a few reasons: 1. it made a decent return at the US box office; 2. it didn't cost very much to make; and 3. it is actually surprisingly good.

Read more

2009 - Adam's take

2009-01-09T14:08:00.000-08:00

Such are the vagaries of the film release calendar it doesn't feel as though 2008 has finished, and indeed it hasn't. I've still got Milk, Revolutionary Road, Doubt, Gran Torino, The Wrestler, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, Frost/Nixon, Nothing But the Truth, Rachel Getting Married and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button all to see before I can possibly announce my side of the much coveted, highly prestigious movieyears awards. All land in the UK in the next couple of weeks after being released late in the year in the US an attempt to snag awards glory.

But for a brief moment let's look ahead at the 2009's genuine releases. Take this list with a pinch of salt. Of those films in my 2008 list, Valkyrie, Star Trek and The International were bumped to 2009 and MR73, Oliver Marchal's follow up to the brilliant 36, didn't even get a UK release; I'm awaiting the DVD. Of those three bumped films, Valkyrie and The International no longer hold much appeal - if they'd been any good they'd have been released when they were originally slated to, or at least that's what one would expect. I am still looking forward to Star Trek though but I can't have it on both my 2008 and 2009 preview, so with that in mind my top 10 most anticipated of '09 are...

10. Terminator: Salvation

The first two Terminator movies are rightly very highly regarded but the 3rd one is actually a very good film as well. Breathtaking chase sequences, particular one involving an enormous truck, complemented what was actually a very nicely written plot, one that advanced the SkyNet/John Connor/T-800 storyline whilst staying true to the previous films. I have concerns over the director and also the 25 year gap between T3 and T4. Nick Stahl did well as the younger John Connor but they seem to have cast well in Christian Bale as the adult Connor. If they have a decent script, and with Bale on board that seems likely, let's hope they can do this thing justice, however McG is best known for directing Charlie's Angels, and that isn't exactly a stellar resume (although I have to confess I thought the sequel, which he also helmed, was pretty good!)

9. Avatar

Well anyone who directs a film to almost $2 billion worldwide, completely obliterating any previous box office record, wins a record 11 Oscars and then takes 12 years off certainly knows how to ramp up expectations for his next project. James Cameron has done just that and we have to wait til December to see how he follows the most successful film of all time.

8. Inglorious Basterds

Well I have a couple of concerns, one: that's not how you spell bastards, and two: Tarantino has been off form over his last two films. I didn't care for Death Proof at all and was disappointed by Kill Bill Vol. 2. However, the guy is still an incredible talent and one of the most unique filmmakers in the business so any new Tarantino film has to be something to look forward to. Basterds stars Brad Pitt in the long-awaited WWII project.

7. Man Who Stares at Goats

Grant Heslov co-wrote Good Night, and Good Luck with George Clooney and that was unquestionably one of the smartest screenplays of that year. The film was very highly received and Heslov has graduated to the director's chair for a film that at the very least has one of the more intriguing titles of the year. Clooney, McGregor, Spacey and Bridges head an impressive cast in an Iraq based comedy.

6. The Informant

I'm not convinced Soderbergh has done anything of especial merit since Traffic but he is still a name I look out for when composing something like this and The Informant looks interesting. Matt Damon stars as the vice president turned informant Mark Whitacre, who accuses the US government of price fixing. It appears it doesn't know what it wants to be however as IMDb lists it as a comedy/crime/thriller/drama. A shame it's not also a sci-fi/western as well.

5. Duplicity

Tony Gilroy's Michael Clayton landed atop my 2007 list so his follow up is a no-brainer in any preview list. Duplicity stars Julia Roberts, Clive Owen, Tom Wilkinson and Paul Giamatti, which is also a no-brainer. This has quality written all over it and one hopes this can capture the absorbing atmosphere of his debut film. He certainly knew how to get great performances out of his actors so at the very least we should be in for an acting masterclass. The plot sees Roberts and Owen team up pull the "ultimate con job" on their bosses. Sounds like there is comedic potential but IMDb assures us this is a pure thriller.

4. State of Play

Tony Gilroy's second appearance on this list, this time as writer, in Kevin MacDonald's State of Play. MacDonald's last film, The Last King of Scotland, was complete crap and saved only by an astonishing lead performance, but he is sure to fare better with this adaptation of a well-received British TV political thriller. Rachel McAdams, Russell Crowe, Ben Affleck, Jason Bateman and Helen Mirren star.

3. This Side of the Truth

Here's why this is going to be great:

1. Jeffrey Tambor
2. Ricky Gervais
3. Rob Lowe
4. Jason Bateman
5. Tina Fey
6. Patrick Stewart
and 7. Jeffrey Tambor.

Have I mentioned before that Jeffrey Tambor is quite possibly my favourite actor in the world? For the uninitiated, check out The Larry Sanders Show and you too will be convinced of his brilliance. His Arrested Development efforts weren't too shabby either and I know Gervais is a big fan of both shows so it is no surprise to see him team up with him in his latest film, the first feature film that he has written and directed. Gervais added his own inimitable style to Ghost Town, a highly enjoyable Hollywood debut, but this promises to be even better. In a world where nobody has ever lied, Gervais invents dishonesty out of boredom. Jennifer Garner, Jonah Hill, Jason Bateman and Christopher Guest also star.

2. Shutter Island

Martin Scorsese directs Leonardo DiCaprio, Mark Ruffalo, Ben Kingsley, Emily Mortimer, Michelle Williams, Max von Sydow, Jackie Earle Haley, Patricia Clarkson and Ted Levine in a "Mystery/Crime/Thriller." It's from a Dennis Lehane novel, he who also wrote Mystic River, which didn't fare too badly come Oscar time winning 2 of it's 6 Oscar nominations, all of which came in the most prestigious categories. With one of the best casts of the year, it's a decent bet that this may follow suit.

1. Arrested Development: The Movie

So it hasn't even been officially announced, they're not even in pre-production and it certainly doesn't have a release date, but I figure if enough people like me make this their most anticipated film of 2009 then the powers that be will make it happen. Please please please please please.

Hancock (2008)

2009-01-07T04:44:00.000-08:00

Hancock (Will Smith) is a beleaguered, down-on-his-luck, superhero, living in present day LA but unwanted by the American public, and generally unloved, because he seems to create more destruction than he prevents. Drunk and moody, Hancock drifts aimlessly through his days, mixing drinking with the odd bit of heroism, until he saves the life of Ray Embrey, who works in PR. As a thank you, Ray offers his services to help Hancock's public image and help him come to terms with his past and who he is today...

Read more

We're back

2009-01-06T09:10:00.001-08:00

Apologies for a total lack of posts over the last 2 weeks. I have been sunning it up in Mexico and my colleague was obviously having fun in England, which I returned to Saturday, but it felt like I'd landed somewhere more like the picture above.

Loads for me to catch up on asap - I have seen and will review:

Twlight (surprisingly good)

The Reader (surprisingly bad)

Lakeview Terrace (somewhere in between)

and am seeing Australia later, although I approach with trepidation after mixed reviews, and I pledge to see Che and Slumdog Millionaire by the weekend. Reviews forthcoming.

2009 Preview Baby

2009-01-01T03:15:00.000-08:00

Well, 2009 is here and us dedicated types at MyFilmVault have disregarded our hangovers, put off clearing up the beer cans and shaken off our disappointment at the lack of football today to bring you this preview of the year ahead. And what a year it promises to be. As I was putting this together I was struck by the amount of quality that will be coming our way. I could easily have doubled this list and, further, have made one for January alone, such is the quality coming our way over the next 31 days. We have the first part of Che (though not in Leicester, sadly), Sam Mendes' Revolutionary Road (a GREAT book), Australia, The Wrestler and Slumdog Millionaire all to look forward to. So, I'll leave these off my preview, even though I've earmarked Che as my most mouthwatering prospect over the next 12 months. That said, a number of other tasty morsels are being offered up. The question is...how many of these will I actually go and see at the cinema? A market will shortly open up on Betfair.

1. Watchmen

Although this is in no particular order, watching Hancock (see next review...) has really put me in the mood for this forthcoming, bound-to-be-brainy, superhero film. Set in an alternate 1985, an age still riddled with cold war paranoia and despair, being a superhero is not uncommon. However, superhero status has now become outlawed and 'vigilantes' have been discredited and run underground. But when one of their number is brutally murdered, a rag-tale band of former heroes reunites to track down the murderer and uncover further sinister goings on...

If this sounds like a novel take on a superhero movie, it is. This is bound to be dark, claustrophobic, deep, thoughtful and brutal. Having been knocking around Hollywood in one form or another for a number of years, it is amazing it has even been made at all. Both Stallone and Schwarzenegger were reportedly attached at one time or another, but directed Zack Snyder has thankfully gone for a bunch of by-and-large unknowns, although I note Patrick Wilson has been getting some love from my colleague's lists and reviews of late.

In a way (and discounting the January flurry of promising movies), I'm most looking forward to this in 2009 as it promises something different and something interesting, following on from the equally interesting and brave Hancock from 2008. And we don't have to wait too long for this. It should be with us on March 6th.

2. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Okay, a somewhat dull choice I know, and perhaps an inevitable one given that I've posted on it before. It's worrying that it was put back a year (this should have been released this past November) and I haven't yet heard an explanation as to why it has been put back, but I still hold out hope.

This is the best of the Potter books (which I've read), and that's saying something given that book 7 is also superb. But Book 6 has even more than the thrilling climax and, if done well, this should be dark, claustrophobic, tense, compelling and thrilling (a bit of a theme emerging here...). There are signs that the actors are getting better, that Gambon is beginning to fill Richard Harris' rather large wizard-shaped shoes as Dumbledore, and that things are beginning to come together. Film 5 (Order of the Phoenix) wasn't great, but, then again, neither was the book. Book 6 is almost as long, but not a word is wasted. They'll do well to cram it all in, and cram it all in effectively, but this is the moment I fell back in love with Potter. For those who hate the books and the films, this is the time to give it a second chance.

Another look at the trailer...

3. Where the Wild Things Are

Oh dear, only at number 3, and two 'children's' films already previewed. And, like Watchmen and Potter 6, this is also courting controversy, particularly among the fanboys of Maurice Sendak's book. I've never read it so I can't comment. I don't understand, however, the hostility fans of books, comics, theatre productions have to the very idea of their beloved artistic treasures being made into a film (not that they can't be disappointed with the final result). Isn't it good that a piece of genuine art will reach a larger audience? Give the filmmaker a chance. After all, if it wasn't for Spielberg (with a little help from Messrs Scheider, Dreyfuss, Shaw et al), where would Jaws be?

And director Spike Jonze (whatever else you may feel about him) can hardly, in all fairness, be called cynical. Add that to the fact that the screenplay was penned by the brilliant Dave Eggers, you just have to call on people to give this a chance. Please...

Anyway, the film centres on Max, a young boy sent to his room without any supper. Angry, he creates an imaginary world inhabited by creatures, who crown him their ruler. We are promised more darkness, more scares, more fear. This just sounds very interesting and well worth a look, particularly for someone like me who works with children and particularly enjoys working with their imaginations. Well worth a look.

4. Drag Me To Hell

Moving away from children's films onto horror movies...

This also sees Sam Raimi move away - briefly - from his Spiderman baby to this tale of a Loan Officer (Christine) ordered to evict an old woman from her home. The old woman then places a supernatural curse on Christine, who is forced to turn to supernatural forces of her own to help liberate her from the curse.

This sounds, in all essentials, like a genuine, old-fashioned, chiller which, like this years brilliant REC, will aim to bridge an unsettling gap between modernity, superstition and religion. And if the result is anything like that achieved by REC, the results could be fantastic and genuinely chilling. This one is heading our way in May (a shame it misses Halloween, which seems to be devoid of decent, even promising, films year on year).

5. The Road

I finished reading this novel, by current literati darling Cormac McCarthy (fully deserving of adoration by the way), a few months back and loved it. Set in a post-apocalyptic nightmarish America, the entire landscape of which is awash with black ash and ruin and which is ravaged by roving bands of carnivorous, brutal, survivors.

It sounds fairly by the by from that description, yet it is anything but. For, through the ash and charred remains of humanity and human landscapes, walk a father and son, desperately striving, against all hope and against all the odds, for some form of redemption.

Don't get me wrong, this is such an emotionally note perfect book it will be very difficult to pull off well. But the signs are promising. Helmed by John Hillcoat, who did a great job with The Proposition (which, vitally, looked great, as this will have to as well) and starring Viggo Mortenson (who is, believe me, perfectly cast), this also features cameos by Guy Pearce, Robert Duvall and Charlize Theron, a cast that certainly gets my juices going. And the noises coming out of the camp, particularly about the key relationship between father and son (the latter played by the largely unheralded Kodi Smith-McPhee), are equally promising. This will be probably be very good, but, if pulled off, could be great. I await with great interest.

Well, that's my first five, the next five will follow later. A fairly eclectic bunch of films and no doubt some surprising and controversial choices, but we here at MyFilmVault like to keep you on your toes, so I hope you enjoy perusing this little selection. January promises to be a great month and I hope I'll actually manage to see some of the cinematic fare served up in the post-Christmas period. So, enjoy, and back soon with more previews.

You Can Count On Me (2000)

2008-12-31T01:48:00.000-08:00

This was recommended to me eons ago by my colleague but it has only just arrived via my LoveFilm account. So, was my colleague right to endorse this understated Americana drama?

In short, definitely. This is a brilliant film, which I enjoyed from start to finish. Even Matthew Broderick didn't manage to ruin it for me and was actually quite good. He even made me laugh out loud through his delivery of a line. Wow. This augers well for a good year in film in 2009.

You Can Count on Me focuses on the life of Sammy Prescott (the once again stunning Laura Linney), who raises young son Rudy (Rory Culkin) on her own. Following the death of Sammy's parents in a car accident when they were very young, the family has disintegrated. But an opportunity for redemption arrives when down-on-his-luck younger brother, the dreamy and disaffected Terry, comes to visit.

Films like this live and die on the quality of their performances, being insular, quiet, understated and totally focused on story and relationships. The leads do not let director Kenneth Lonnergan down one bit.

Is Linney the greatest actress performing in Hollywood today? This website would seem to suggest yes, as she is one of the few performers who seems to elicit the same response of adoration from us both, yet she is still relatively unknown. Linney has generally chosen indie flicks to showcase her vast talents and she still perhaps awaits that genuine breakout movie, which it seemed for a while the Truman Show would be. Perhaps it is a good thing that she hasn't 'broken out' and continues to make stunning films like this and 2007's Jindabyne (although my colleague was not as blown away by her performance there as I was). Linney is, again, the best thing in this and that is no mean feat, given the other performances, especially Ruffalo's. Her range and emotional depth is perfectly showcased in the love Sammy clearly has for her troubled younger brother and Linney invests the character with multiple dimensions of being, thought, emotion and behaviour. The character lives and this means the film gasps and breathes deeply the emotional wilds and vistas it inhabits. Linney is, like a true virtuoso, note and tone perfect throughout.

Ruffalo is great as well, brilliantly awkward, funny and distant as a character who clearly carries a lot more with him than he is ever willing to let on. He does some stupid things, but they always feel human and very real and the audience is sympathetically tied to his fate. Rory Culkin, too, clearly got all the acting talents in his family and he is now beginning to break out into the mainstream after measured performances in this and Signs. And as I say, even Matthew Broderick, who I dislike immensely as an actor and consistently fail to understand how he still gets acting jobs, is decent in this, only on occasion lapsing into his normal inconsistency and poor delivery.

This is well worth an hour and a half of anyone's time, imbued in the life and struggle of an interesting, mostly charming and engaging family. The characters are neatly drawn, lively and, crucially, human and the performers have the requisite talents to live up to them. Add this to your LoveFilm wishlist or seek it out at your local video store. Lovely.

A-

Quick Notes

2008-12-15T14:32:00.000-08:00

Two feel good films that are getting some attention as the critics start handing out their end of year prizes. Having much in common, both are independent films, one US the other UK, featuring strong lead performances and both are easily worth your time and money.

The Visitor

Thomas McCarthy's The Visitor stars Richard Jenkins in a rare leading role and after this one can only hope that more follow for he is wonderful. The title might very well refer to Richard Jenkins' character Walter - a stranger to his own NY home - he spends all his time in Connecticut trying to appear as busy as possible when in fact he does very little. It might be Tarek (Haaz Sleiman), the illegal immigrant he discovers living in his apartment when he makes a rare return to New York for a conference. It may also be Tarek's mother Mouna (Hiam Abbass), who arrives in New York when she does not hear from her son for a few of days. All 3 touch each other's lives significantly and unexpectedly.

Impeccably acted by all, but especially Jenkins and Sleiman, the former deserves all the awards notice he is getting. I had a smile on my face for large chunks of the running time and, whilst the film certainly ha a point to make about the American immigration system, it by no means batters you over the head with it. It is a warm, funny, even touching film that invites you to spend 90-odd minutes with some wonderful characters, and that can never be a bad thing.

A-

Happy-Go-Lucky

Happy-Go-Lucky is Mike Leigh's latest, and whilst it doesn't veer away from his usual low budget take on the working class trappings, it does present a far happier portrayal of British life than much of his work. I've enjoyed Leigh most when he has explored subject matters outside his comfort zone - Topsy-Turvy being, in my eyes, easily his best work. Well Happy-Go-Lucky is also a little outside his comfort zone and features a wonderful Sally Hawkins as Poppy, who's character biography can be accurately synopsised by reading the title of the film. Quite unlike any character Leigh has written before, indeed quite unlike any character I have ever seen on screen before, Poppy is an infectious, inexorably delighted 30 year old who can laugh at anything, including severe back pain, make jokes out of the smallest of situations and who has a unwaveringly sunny outlook on life.

Some have found her carefree character irritating and I confess 5 minutes in I was itching for the off button, but that was more to do with there being five such individuals in the room together - an assault on anyone's senses. Poppy on her own though is pretty great and is highly enjoyable to watch especially when playing opposite her perfect counterfoil Scott, who is the antithesis of Poppy. Uptight, highly-strung and angry, Scott has the unenviable task of teaching Poppy how to drive - his exasperation providing frequent comic highlights.

There's no plot to speak of, Leigh, like McCarthy, has invited you to spend some time with some wonderful characters - in this case Poppy and Scott. Played to perfection, Marsan has sadly been overlooked thus far in the end of year awards circuit but Hawkins is racking up wins and nominations like there's no tomorrow. An Oscar nod is likely, and would be well deserved.

Just one minus point - the score is woeful. Everything else is great though. I really would love to see Mike Leigh get $100 million to spend on a movie one of these days. Until then I'll continue to enjoy great work such as this.

B+

Your 2008 Oscar Host

2008-12-13T04:08:00.001-08:00

Changeling

2008-12-13T02:46:00.000-08:00

Apparently Hollywood's highest paid actress, Angelina Jolie certainly has a decent amount of range - at least in the genre of films she appears in. Happy to appeal to the young testosterone juiced males in ludicrous (although quite fun) action heavy films like Wanted, she also makes sure she appears in enough films with higher pretensions in order to be taken seriously as a - well - serious actress. Very few actors have such a successful dual career - a number jump from one camp to the other for the odd film, but generally appear happier in the dumb popcorn stuff or the not so dumb award bait stuff and rarely both.

To date her more serious roles have yielded just one Oscar nomination and that was back in 2000 for Girl Interrupted - a role she went on to win for. A Mighty Heart was supposed to change that last year but Oscar looked away when everyone else at least saw fit to nominate her. This year though a nomination looks even likelier than it did this time 12 months ago, for Jolie has landed a role apparently highly sought after; Christine Collins - a woman whose son disappears one day when she takes on an extra shift at work, triggering a 5 months man hunt for her lost child. After an exhaustive search the LAPD, desperate to receive some good press, announce that they have found her son when in actual fact the boy they found is someone she's never met in her life. Worse, they refuse to acknowledge their mistake once they "reunite" mother and son and forcefully suggest Collins should take the boy home to "try him out" for a few weeks.

This was a time when the police had an incredible amount of power but very rarely used it wisely. Corruption was rife and mistreatment commonplace. Incredibly the police department didn't even require a medical examination to have someone (almost exclusively a female) incarcerated for mental illness. This was the 20s and women were largely second class citizens. At work Collins is told her manager had to lay his job on the line to get her promoted to shift supervisor - his bosses telling him women couldn't do the job. But inequality in the workplace is one thing, the ability to lock someone up without cause is quite another. Embarrassed by her protests that the boy is not her own, the department start actively campaigning against Collins, indicating that she is an unfit mother and mentally unstable - getting her sectioned under a code 12 internment, code 12 being a term used to jail or commit someone who was deemed difficult or an inconvenience. Enraged by the injustice of this and other cases involving the LAPD, a preacher Reverend Gustav Briegleb (John Malkovich) complains daily of police mistreatment in his radio broadcasts and takes up the Christine Collins case as a personal mission to right the wrongs she has faced.

Clint Eastwood's first of two late 08 releases (the other being Gran Torino) is a typical Eastwood helmed picture. Sparse, understated, efficient. He has a confidence in the director's chair that comes with having directed films for nearly 40 years. Filming takes just a few weeks, he apparently rarely does multiple takes of a particular scene. If he likes the way his actors have done it first time round, he'll call cut and move on to the next scene. There's no irritating little tics like "clever" camera placements, edits or swooping pans. He is totally comfortable with placing the camera in the middle of the shot, letting his actors do their thing, then moving on. And where he excels, is getting excellent performances out of his cast. This is very much Angelina Jolie's picture and it is not hard to work out why both Hilary Swank and Reese Witherspoon lobbied for the role. This has serious awards potential - a heck of a lot of screen time, period piece, wronged woman etc. Whilst I wouldn't say she knocks it out of the park, she is certainly very good and has probably done enough to secure the second Oscar nomination of her career. This is not a performance on the same level as Kristen Scott Thomas' but then nothing else this year will be.

The other strong points in Eastwood's film largely revolve around his production crew, for Chageling is as handsome a film as I've seen for a while. It retains a 20s feel throughout - wonderful sets, impeccable costumes, hair and makeup. Its photographed wonderfully - retaining the 20s look through the lens. You feel a lot of time and effort went in to recreating the time period and the entire production team deserve an art direction nod for their efforts here.

Good support comes from Jeffrey Donovan who delivers one great line in particular - the one on the trailer: "why would we be looking for someone we have already found" - a wonderful mix of embarrassment, exasperation and desperation. If myfilmvault.com was sad enough to have an award for best single line reading I dare say this would be in my top 5 for the year. Changeling is an enjoyable film, one that never drags and a film that effortlessly changes gear and focus as the story unfolds. The story itself edges towards incredulity - indeed were it not a true story you might even suggest the screenwriters had pushed things a little too far. Normally I roll my eyes whenever I see those dreaded words "based on a true story" come up at the beginning of the film. On this occasion it is both necessary and actually enhances the film.

B

Miss Potter (2006)

2008-12-08T14:45:00.000-08:00

My shameful lack of up to date reviews goes on. And I just can't muster up any enthusiasm to write a full review of this disappointing and ultimately dull film.

Is it fair to criticize a biopic for its poor characterization? Couldn't the director and stars simply reply 'well, why bother watching the film if the characters don't interest you?' Clearly, that will not do. Not only would a director with this attitude be very unlikely to sell tickets for her films, it is perfectly reasonable to expect nuanced, sophisticated characterization from a biopic. For one, you might just not really know the characters - as was the case for me here. Indeed, a biopic will live and die on its characters and whilst this doesn't irredeemably guillotine its audience we are still subjected to a slow lingering cinematic demise equivalent to those unfortunate souls who fall into Saarlac's pit.

In short, this is a dull, uninteresting pastiche of cliches, contrivances and annoyances lumped into 90 poorly put together minutes. The end result is very unsatisfactory and it falls well below the emotional waterline which it is trying to tread. The film does eventually find it's feet in the last third, but it's too late to save it from mediocrity.

Very briefly, the film tells the story of Beatrix Potter's attempts to have her books published and the young editor Norman Warne (Ewan McGregor) who falls for them and her. Renee Zellweger, who I like, is disappointing as Beatrix and the character feels annoying and largely charmless, which I, like the film itself, am sure she wasn't. McGregor is given little to do and is even denied the one scene which might have added an extra layer of emotional meaning to the film. The best aspect of the characters is certainly Ruppert Potter's (Bill Paterson's) awesome sideburns.

Okay, I'm being unnecessarily mean, but some of the accolades showered on this are way wide of the mark, particularly that dreaded adjective "enchanting". Whilst Beatrix Potter clearly was an interesting character, she is anything but enchanting here and I just found the characterisation and development annoying and cliched. Emily Watson, as Millie Warne, Norman's sister, is probably the best thing in it (as she often is) but that is not saying much.

I just can't recommend this. It's not awful, and the last part of the film is far more satisfying that the clunky moments that lead up to it. Perhaps I just wasn't in the mood and this is better than I give it credit for but, regardless of whether I was in the mood or not, this is certainly not recommendation quality. I think a

C

is fair...

I await disagreement.

Cinematography of the Year 2003

2008-12-08T14:43:00.000-08:00

Yet another very difficult call this year. You could potentially make a case for all of the five films in my top 5. Although, really, the cinematography in Return of the King, good though it is, is essentially just a follow on from the efforts of the previous two films, the visualisations of the City of the Dead (in particular) and also Minas Tirith (the City of the Kings) is especially stunning and the film is worthy of inclusion in any discussion on those two visual megaliths alone.

Another two films outside my top 5 also merit attention for visual thrills. The first is the spectacular bloodbath that is Zatoichi. Katsumi Yanagishima clearly has an eye for blood and the powerful effect copious amounts of it can have on an audience. When done well, that is, and not crudely, as in another 2003 film, Kill Bill: Volume 1. Tarantino could take a lesson here (which, or so I would argue, he did for volume 2).

Three of the films in my top 5 (The Station Agent, All the Real Girls and Mystic River) come from the same visual plateau (Americana) yet each, especially taken together, show just how light, atmosphere and backdrop can so heavily both influence, and reflect, mood. Mystic River feels dark and foreboding throughout, like the secrecy and undercurrents of discomfort that layer the town and its inhabitants. All the Real Girls is classic David Gordon Green (though it is Tim Orr and not Adam Stone - see my previous post - on photography duty here), dreamy, sleepy, soulful, romantic, all light perfectly reflecting and encompassing sound, like the quiet ping of a raindrop on a spring pond. Beautiful and sensuous. And the Station Agent - quiet, lazy, dreamy, backwater America washed with a cinematic landscape which makes you want to live it and, indeed, live in it. If I had to choose between them, All the Real Girls would win. I just love the look and feel of Green's films and can't wait to see his latest effort, Snow Angels.

Lost in Translation (cinematography by Lance Acord) is a different animal entirely, looking radiant and dazzling, bejewelled by the throbbing neon lights of a Hong Kong reminiscent (but no more than that) of Christopher Doyle's heartached Hong Kong landscapes in the films of Wong Kar Wai. Lost in Translation pushes the eventual winner close too.

However, the 2003 award goes to the second film not in my top 5, the Polish brothers' Northfork. I would watch this again purely for M. David Mullen's photography. The look is a perfect balance between dreamworld and reality, as though the stark, ethereal and dolorous bright light, inhabited by its strange, unearthly creatures, is itself the delicate and lonely bridge between this world and the next, into which the town of Northfork is shortly to disappear. Atavistic and brilliant, the light divides the two worlds, and moods, of the film perfectly. Northfork is a very good film, though one that disappeared too quickly, and its cinematography is well worthy of this award, which it steals ahead of more famous, and more heralded, company. Indeed, the company it finds itself in, and, ultimately ahead of (in this category) in 2003, is testimony to Mullen's strange and beautiful achievement.

Shotgun Stories (2007)

2008-12-04T13:28:00.000-08:00

My colleague is going to despair. I finally get around to writing a review for (what I thought was) a 2008 film, then IMDB tells me it's 2007, even though it's only just come out on DVD. What to do? Well, I'll just have to go ahead and review the film anyway.

Shotgun Stories, a classic Matt-pleasing lyrical, pensive, beautifully shot, drama, set in the American south, focuses on three brothers, named Kid, Boy and Son who feud with four half-brothers following the death of their common father. Hated by Kid, Boy and Son, but beloved by the other brothers, Cleaman, Stephen, Mark and John, their father's legacy divides an already unstable family and shatters an uneasy peace, leading to inevitable tragedy, as plain and as sure as the sweet Arkansas sun laying in the rivets and shards of cotton in the fields which form the sumptuous and delicate backdrop to this unassuming, but engaging, human tragedy.

From the start, this is a powerful film. You begin by thinking that Film-maker Jeff Nichols has chosen very poor names for his lead characters but, following the powerful and foreboding funeral scene (eaten up on screen by Son, played by Michael Shannon, more on whom later), it soon dawns on the viewer that their names bear the indelible mark of a neglectful and abusive father who couldn't give so much of a damn as to give them a proper name. Notably unlike his other four sons, who proclaim, with all honesty and integrity, that their father was a changed man after he ran out on Kid, Boy and Son. It's a powerful message - a history, a legacy, is a hard thing to shake at the best of times, but harder still when your name, and how it contrast with that of more favoured and fortunate siblings, stands as a constant reminder to pain, loss, struggle and turmoil, never clearer than when Son, at his father's funeral, reflects that their father ran out on them "to be raised by a hateful woman" his voice bleeding with pregnant rage.

As required by character-lead dramas, the performances here are high end and the characters deep, fluid and interesting. Michael Shannon, as Son, steals the film. An incredible mixture of Joaquin Phoenix, Di Caprio and early Brando, Shannon gives a performance here that suggests he will go on to greater things. I hope he does, he deserves to. Son is one of those rare characters whose fate you just feel tide to and in whose world you have some strange urge to belong, despite its difficulty and struggle. A great performance. Douglas Ligon and Barlow Jacobs, as Boy and Kid respectively, have more to do than the brothers from the other side of the family, and both ably support Shannon and all three brothers are deep, interesting, characters that stand well above the level of caricature, not always easy with a film such as this. The other four brothers are less developed, with the exception of the interesting and pained Cleaman (Michael Abbot Jr.), and this is a flaw, but one that will have to be excused, given the film's running time. It doesn't, I think, have designs on being 'epic' and that will be reflected in the final grade.

Shot by David Gordon Green (on producer duty here)'s favorite cinematographer Adam Stone (who photographed Green's George Washington, All The Real Girls and Undertow), this looks accomplished, lyrical and stunning, the images deliberately provoking contrasts with one another and the overall mood of the film (Green's influence on Nichols is palpable here). The score, by Lucero Pyramid, is suitably haunting and compelling as well.

I really liked this and will add it to my collection as soon as possible. It's very much my kind of film and that is reflected in my grade, so the recommendation comes with that warning that this is very me, but that is not to say it isn't very you either. Well, well, worth a go and well worth an

A-

Body of Lies

2008-11-27T12:13:00.000-08:00

After a spate of spate of middle-east based failures released by Hollywood over the past 12 months, you have to approach yet another one with some trepidation, even if it comes from an acclaimed director and has the one-two punch of Crowe and Di Caprio above the title. It's been met with a muted response from critics - Body of Lies currently polls a mediocre 50% on rottentomatoes, which means half of those critics polled would class this as a failure, putting it behind the likes of Zack and Miri Make a Porno, Quantum of Solace, and, incredibly, RocknRolla. Point me out the raving lunatic that thinks Guy Ritchie has done anything in the last 10 years that comes anywhere close to the quality of this film and I'll beat him to death with a big black rubber sex toy. To be fair, that memorable scene actually came from the one film that Guy Ritchie has ever done that was any good, but I digress.

Body of Lies opens with a skilfully directed action sequence set in Manchester and then another in the Middle East involving Roger Ferris (Di Caprio), a covert Arabic speaking CIA agent specialising in counter terrorist work. After almost single-handedly dispatching a terrorist cell he is given a promotion of sorts to work out of the US embassy in Jordan. After quickly putting his predecessor in his place over the half arsed job he and his team have been doing, Di Caprio approaches the Jordanian head of security (Mark Strong) with whom he sets up an uneasy alliance - one where they clearly prefer the tag of friendship than enmity but where neither has the confidence to share classified information with each other. The film explores Ferris' attempts to root out terror in Jordan with the ultimate goal of capturing Al-Saleem, the man responsible for the Manchester bombing as well as others throughout Europe.

Critics have said this is a very Tony Scott film, and it is true that this is the most technologically up to date film of the Ridley's career, and the most action heavy piece since Black Hawk Down. Ridley's younger brother hasn't really done anything of note since Enemy of the State, but that particular film is genuinely great in my opinion and, like this, was technologically savvy and covered much ground quickly.

Body of Lies though is a completely different beast. It has a smart script penned from the David Ignatius novel and adapted by Oscar winner William Monahan, with whom Scott work on Kingdom of Heaven. Perhaps a perceived lack of focus hurt the film in terms of critical reception, and it is true that there is a lot going on here. We only settle into the meat of the plot half way into the second act, but the build up to that point has been so satisfying that you almost didn't need a clearly defined goal, although when it comes it is a strength of the film. Ferris hatches a clever plan to entrap Al-Saleem by setting up a rival terrorist cell and getting Saleem curious enough to initiate contact. The way Ferrris goes about setting it up is smart and brilliantly executed and could easily have merited its own 2 hour picture.

However I wouldn't fault the structure of this film at all and it was extremely entertaining to be plunged into the hi-tech world of counter-terrorism. Di Caprio is once again on top form in a film in which he probably should have got sole billing. That honour was shared by Russell Crowe who, despite being one of the finest actors working today, I have yet to mention. That's because he really is a secondary player to Di Caprio and has very little to do other than speak on the phone to his man in the field. If Di Caprio is a bit like Jack Bauer, Crowe is a bit like a one man CTU - someone who phones in advice and instruction from Washington and a man capable of making extremely tough calls instantly, and without giving them a second though. Crowe carrying an extra few pounds and in the Jeffrey Wigand build from The Insider, plays his small role perfectly and is possibly the star of the show, although it's a close run thing between him and relative newcomer Mark Strong. Strong plays the Jordanian minister with a quiet gravitas that has you completely convinced that the guy is extremely powerful. Oozing charisma and authority in his role, Strong really should get a significant career boost from his impressive performance here.

Body of Lies is far far better than critics will tell you. Whilst it wont go down as a home run in the Ridley Scott canon, it a film I would unhesitatingly recommend. The strong performances and the wonderful visual flair that you a guaranteed with Ridley, make it worth the price of admission alone.

B+

Quarantine

2008-11-25T12:59:00.000-08:00

Well it just couldn't be as good as myfilmvault's virtual lock for film of the year could it. Could it? [Rec] is the only film in both mine and Matt's top 3 - it got an A+ from him, an A from me. The last time we agreed on a film, Scorsese was just an Oscarless journeyman director and Arnold Schwarzenegger had as much political clout as Jean Claude Van Damme. We nevr agree on films - yet on [Rec] we agree; it is essential viewing.

Watching an original film and virtual shot for shot remake in the space of 6 months feels a little more like homework than going to the cinema should. I couldn't help myself making frequent comparisons to the original: comparing characters, comparing actors that played those characters, spotting deviations in plot or structure, comparing dialogue. Certain things were done better, some felt pointless, many changes however simply made the film weaker, and a couple made you scratch your head and wonder what the director was thinking.

The main points for comparison are the quality of acting and screenplay. Jennifer Carpenter is surprisingly accomplished for a relative newcomer in her first starring role. She convinces throughout and deals with some difficult scenes very well. However, she is simply not as good as Manuela Valesco who was near faultless in the [Rec]. Supporting characters are a mixed bunch in the remake, whilst I don't remember any weak links at all in the original. Unless you are really anti subtitles, there is little doubt that the Spanish film has the finest script. A couple of crass jokes in Quarantine take you out of the picture and characters behave a little more stupidly in this than they do in [Rec]. It is a typical horror film complaint of mine for inexplicable behaviour, but that was a complete rarity in the original. Not so here, although it is nowhere near as bad as many contemporary US horrors.

Plot variations are admittedly slight, although those minor changes do feel completely unnecessary. Why focus at length on a open fracture for instance - horror films are surely at their best when eliciting a sense of dread, fear or, well, horror. A rather gross looking wound elicits none of those emotions and for me it's a disappointing nod (albeit a slight one) to the appalling likes of Hostel where the torture porn aspect seems infinitely more important than actual plot, structure or intelligence.

Ultimately of course, if I'd seen Quarantine first these quibbles would disappear and I'd be on hear telling you to go and see this wonderful film. After all they've done very little to it and based it on an excellent film. How could it possibly fail? Answer: it couldn't, and it hasn't. However since it is the lesser of the two trapped-in-an-apartment-block first person video camera filmed horror films released in 2008, you really should check out the better one.

B-

The Baader-Meinhof Complex

2008-11-20T14:24:00.000-08:00

Germany's entry to this years foreign film Oscar race is the ambitious retelling of the early years of the West German terrorist group the Red Army Faction. The RAF were responsible for at least 34 deaths and many more injuries during its existence, many of those coming in the group's early years as depicted in Uli Edel's film.

Screenwriting 101 will tell you to define your main character and to define his or her need - the desire of the character will drive the story forward. Think of the classic screenplays and you'll be able to work out quite easily who the protagonist is and what they want. Clarice Starling needs to find the senator's daughter, TE Lawrence wants to help the Arabs lead a revolt against the Ottoman empire, Rocky wants to be a heavyweight champion, LB Jeffries wants to discover whether a murder has been committed across the courtyard. Well for the life of me I couldn't work out either either who the main character in this was in the Baader-Meinhof Complex, nor what he, she or anyone in the film wanted.

Ostensibly the RAF want to establish themselves amongst the plethora of revolutionary and radical groups. They want themselves to be heard, for people to take notice, for American to pull out of Vietnam. The pledge to prevent what they see as the rise of fascism once again, to fight West Germany's capitalist establishment and to "annihilate, to destroy, to smash the system of imperialist domination, on the political, economic, and military planes." But what on earth motivates such a group to commit heinous acts? Vandalism, theft and murder are all within what the groups sees as acceptable acts, but the viewer never gets a sense of how they came to this conclusion. Perhaps there isn't an easy answer to this question, and perhaps it is not in the remit of a screenplay to explore such motivations, but after 2 hours 45 minutes you do feel shortchanged when such an unfocused, overloaded film leaves you knowing nothing more about the RAF than you did when you went in.

There are saving graces. The Baader-Meinhof gang, as they were known initially, come across as a rather morally bankrupt bunch of hypocritical, senseless extremists and not the courageous, activists that I feared they would. This is after all a gang of indiscriminate murdering, vandalising thugs, and not some misunderstood intelligent politically savvy left wing crowd. Hard to believe reports that a high percentage of Germany's youth sympathised with the gang, but apparently it is so. Fortunately Edel resists any temptation to glamorise the gang but despite this, there is still some concern that any film focusing on the now disbanded organisation would give them some unnecessary coverage and only serve to upset the many victims of the RAFs attacks. This controversy upon its release in its homeland did little to help ignite it at the box office, as might have been expected and in fact it flopped quite badly - a severe blow to Uli Edel and his team who reputedly made the most expensive German film in history. It seems likely then that it may also be the German film industry's most expensive bomb.

Why then has it been entered in the Oscar race by a country who must surely have had others films to choose from? Perhaps this may play better overseas where the controversy very clearly doesn't exist. Few people will be at all familiar with the RAF and fewer still with the key individuals within the organisation that are portrayed here. The film has technical merit, screenplay aside. Edel is more than competent with his direction, the acting is impressive and the production values are strong.

Yet if you, like me, find you learn nothing from a film that has sacrificed plot and narrative for character study you have to chalk this one up as a pretty sizable failure since those characters reveal very little about themselves in the entire duration. A very noble failure no doubt, and one that has some very large plus points, but a failure nonetheless.

C

OSS 117: Cairo - Nest of Spies

2008-11-20T14:09:00.000-08:00

James Bond spoofs have a history of failing to be as funny as they think they are. This is just another example and the second Bond parody to fail this year alone. This is certainly a notch up on Get Smart, but the latter set the bar so low that it was barely off the ground. This French farce has probably raised it a couple of millimetres - or, as the French like to say - millimètres .

This went down well in its homeland, earning several Cesar nominations, including a Best Actor nomination for its star. Jean Dujardin is certainly well cast and performs his role with gusto, however he just can't shake the limp, uninspired script that weighs the whole film down. 95% of the jokes just don't work and that simply doesn't make for a very good comedy. I did love the stylish opening credits however.

D+

Pride and Glory

2008-11-20T13:20:00.000-08:00

Colin Farrell is one of those actors that inexplicably has a career in which he continues to get starring roles despite none of his films doing particularly well at the box office, nor indeed garnering much praise from critics either. I certainly remember some good notices for his supporting turn in Minority Report - a breakthrough performance that pushed him into the big time, however you have to wonder what he has done in the last few years to deserve getting his name on the marquee. Flop after flop has been released - all films taking well under their productions budgets at the US box office. Neither Intermission or A Home at the End of the World could even cover a quarter of their very modest budgets. Alexander was a spectacular bomb in his biggest budgeted film to date - a film in which undoubtedly people would either come to see it if the Colin Farrell name carried some sort of cache. They didn't.

Since then we have been treated to The New World (Terence Mallick flop), Miami Vice (Michael Mann flop) and Casandra's Dream (Woody Allen flop and his 2nd worst box office return in his 37 film history). 3 great directors all clamouring for Farrell's services but look where it got them. Farrell is box office poison and you have to wonder what he has to do to get himself relegated to supporting roles again - something I suspect he'd fare better in.

So we come to his latest box office crashing disappointment: Pride and Glory - a film that currently hasn't even taken two thirds of its production budget at the worldwide box office. To be fair Farrell probably is more of a supporting character in this, although still shares top billing with Edward Norton for reasons that remain elusive. Norton plays a cop assigned to investigate a multiple police homicide that seems to be more complex than some want to believe. Farrell plays his brother-in-law and fellow cop. One's corrupt, one's not. You can work out for yourself which is which. Except you wont, since you almost certainly wont watch this film, because it isn't very good.

Any good will built up by moderate first act success - a decently staged opening American Football match, some good scenes with the underrated Noah Emmerich - quickly evaporates as things descend into absolute farce. It's as if the screenwriter got half way and thought "fuck, I've got absolutely no idea how to end this things. Let's have the two main characters fight." It is completely laughably, embarrassingly stupid. It makes no sense. It makes less than no sense. And that's only one of several ridiculous contrivances that drive the story to its inept coda. Think of the worst ending you've ever seen in a film. Double it, and you've got the ending to Pride and Glory.

D

Easy Virtue

2008-11-10T10:45:00.000-08:00

This thoroughly appalling British film marks the 6th occasion this year that I have bailed on a film before the credits rolled. One leading American critic got into trouble a few weeks ago after it emerged he reviewed a film he'd only seen the first 8 minutes of. I stayed for significantly more than that, although I don't think I quite made it to the hour mark. Perhaps one shouldn't review a film unless they've seen all of it, or perhaps if you do you should be upfront about it. Well here's me being upfront: if you don't think I should review a movie I didn't see to its conclusion, treat this as a review of the first 45 minutes.

It is very possible that Easy Virtue defied all expectation and suddenly found some shred of competence in a screenplay that had thus far adapted a Noel Coward play so badly that it made the playwright seem positively humourless.

It is possible that every single attempt at humour suddenly hit the mark where they had hitherto missed so badly that is was excruciating to watch.

It is also possible that the makers of this thing realised that watching interiors shot as though they have been illuminated by candle-light was unacceptable and that they drafted in a proper cinematographer for the second half.

It is quite possible that the powers that be realised that a period film with a jazzed up soundtrack featuring covers of songs written decades after the film was set, Rose Royce's Car Wash being one example, was completely inappropriate and did nothing more than convey a hopelessly desperate attempt to appear whimsical, funky and cool.

It is certainly possible that Kristen Scott Thomas was given a character of substance in the second half rather than a two-dimensional pale imitation of her Gosford Park character.

It is possible that Biel and Barnes discovered some sort of screen chemistry that had eluded them.

It is possible that the actresses playing the two sisters were recast with actors with more charisma.

It is definitely possible that the director (Stephan Elliot) realised that you don't have to invent new camera angles or movements to make your mark on the industry. Turning the camera 90 degrees to shoot a car sideways on is not clever. It's just irritating.

Yes, all this is possible.

Is it likely? No.

D

Catch Up With The Classics? Part Two - Killer of Sheep

2008-11-06T04:44:00.000-08:00

Taking over from where my previous post left off, why have we had to wait until 2007 for this film, an undoubted classic, to appear on the big screen and receive a full distribution? The answer appears to be that the music rights were too expensive, because the soundtrack features famous American artists like Paul Robeson, Dinah Washington and Elmore James. What? How much were the rights eventually bought for in the end (thanks, in part, to a donation by Steven Soderbergh)? $150,000. What? Are you seriously telling me that no Hollywood studio could afford to spend $150,000 dollars on some music rights when - to pick a few random examples - Saw 4 had a budget of $10 Million, Cradle 2 the Grave had a budget of $25 Million and Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 had a budget of $25 Million. Not buying that one at all. Here we have the selective tradition at work again, the process by which great works, Whitman grass-level cultural artifacts, become lost in the cultural ether because of the strange choices and decisions of certain powers that be. At least Killer of Sheep has now been saved and is available to buy on DVD. It is a shame that it only saw a limited cinematic release in 2007, 30 years after it was first made, it deserves a much wider audience.

This is a film where nothing really happens but nothing happens brilliantly. The film is as invigorating as the first summer rains or the sight of a single star shining bright through a city's smog, dust and ether. The narrative loosely follows Stan (Henry Gayle Sanders) as, in what amounts to a series of vignettes, his life drifts aimlessly on through the Los Angeles ghetto of Watts, where he works in a slaughterhouse. Other characters drift in and out (it reminded me of the Thin Red Line, which is perhaps one reason I loved it so much) and Stan's relationship with his unnamed wife (Kaycee Moore) provides some of the most beautiful and perfect moments of simple, everyday, tenderness that have ever been seen of screen. One scene where the pair dance to Dinah Washington's 'This Bitter Earth' is a perfect symbiosis of musical and cinematic soul and might have made it into my top 25 scenes of all time, but I don't have the heart - yet - to start again. This moment of everyday beauty encapsulates both the film and human life at its most beautiful, its most tender and its most shy.

Burnett clearly has an eye for the brilliant and the beautiful. The cinematography - done by Burnett himself - here is stunning. Although notable for looking strikingly everyday, the film's images retain a power that transcends the everyday. One shot of the local kids playing and running across train lines (see above) more than resembles a war zone, surely no accident given the year (1977) this was filmed and, therefore, its global context. Striking image follows striking image and the black and white only adds to the depth, beauty and realism of the whole thing. Burnett also said that he wanted the film to stand as a testament to the history of African-American music. That's a grand claim and it clearly doesn't live up to it (the film is, after all, only 81 minutes long), however, this does not detract from the amazing symmetry between sight and sound, as though the music is plumbed deep into the veins and lifeblood of the film's rhythmic and soulful heartbeat.

Aside from Sanders and Moore and the children in the film (one of which was played by Burnett's daughter, Angela), the rest of the performances are pretty bad or simply appalling, though none are in the film long enough to tarnish it, nor are any as bad as Charlton Heston's 'effort' in A Touch Of Evil. Sanders invests Stan with a quiet, meandering, dignity and charm and every look and expression reflect the feel of a man whose life is a self-defined struggle and whose quest for purpose and meaning is lost in the depression- and-isolation-scarred landscapes and tenements and found only in life's tender little moments, like the pressing of a warm teacup against a cheek. You really feel for Stan and that is some achievement (to be shared by Gayle and Burnett), given the total lack of narrative or plot of the film. Killer of Sheep is just life.

This is a classic example of brilliantly drawn realism. Realist films don't tend to be considered 'high' culture, perhaps being, in their very essence, too gritty, pavement-centred and down-to-earth. What becomes 'high culture' and why? No one really understands this, especially, perhaps, with cinema, because the infinitesimally small-level, ants-eye, processes by which films get selected, made, produced, distributed, reviewed are totally beyond the sight of both films critics and those of us who form the general film-going population. The same is true of literature, theatre and art (among other things). We just will never know in the vast majority of cases primarily, of course, because the inner processes of selection and choice go on in the privacy of the mind, which can only be shared by communication and, in such cases, rarely is shared. If Killer of Sheep has remained hidden for thirty odd years, what other gems lie unearthed in film-school vaults and studio filing cabinets? Perhaps I can suggest that Indy 5 should be called 'Indiana Jones and the Quest for the Lost Reels', where Indy battles evil film executives, producers and critics to give the world a true view of global culture now lost and hidden.

In the meantime, I'll just have to enjoy Killer of Sheep. And enjoy it again I will. I'm sure this will make it into my top 25 of all time, I've already watched it twice and might watch it again this weekend. A stunning, unusual, imperfect, tender, beautiful film, unlike any other you have ever seen, even other classically 'realist' films. Killer of Sheep and Burnett as a film-maker stand on their own. Not least in the fact that the film is unique in - ultimately - surviving the dreaded clutches of the selective tradition.

Killer of Sheep: A+

Quantum of Solace

2008-11-02T06:18:00.000-08:00

This review is brought to you by Sony Ericsson: Yours to Create; Virgin Atlantic: No Ordinary Airline; and Aston Martin: Power, Beauty and Soul.

Quantum of Solace bowed Friday in the UK, two weeks before its stateside debut, and promptly rewrote the record books for a Friday box office take. Quite obviously the producers and Daniel Craig have re-energised the franchise with Casino Royale and expectation is high for Bond films once again. Trouble is, this just isn't very good - but then again neither was Casino Royale.

If I wanted to watch a Bourne film I would go and watch a Bourne film. Why the Bond overlords decided audiences would prefer all the humour and fun stripped out of these things? Quantum of Solace is just a tiny bit depressing. Relentless action with barely time to cobble together a plot. Precisely 2 very mild quips from Bond - both of which Craig could have timed better - you almost long for Roger Moore.

Read the rest

"This is simply not a very good film"

2008-10-29T06:35:00.000-07:00

Matt's asks why certain films are regarded as classics when better films are forgotten.

Here.

Ghost Town

2008-10-27T03:30:00.001-07:00

Full disclosure: I love Ricky Gervais in anything he has ever done. I think The Office is one of the very best sitcoms every created. I loved Extras - and I love him in it. His stand up shows are fantastic - I paid to see his last one at the Royal Albert Hall and wasn't disappointed. I even watched his role in Stardust by skipping through the film until I hit his scenes, ignoring those that didn't feature him and - surprise - i thought he was great in it.

So it wont be a complete shock to learn that I very much enjoyed his first starring role in Ghost Town, a surprisingly sweet romantic comedy that features a typically Gervais lead character in Bertram Pincus.

Read the rest

Catch Up With The Classics

2008-10-25T01:33:00.000-07:00

The Bicycle Thieves - Ladri Di Biciclette (1948)

I would recommend that anyone invest the brief 80 minutes of your life it will take to catch up with this 1948 classic, set in the dark and depressed streets of Post-War Rome. Directed by Vitorio De Sica, this stands as a landmark in realist film-making. De Sica cast non-professional actors in the lead roles here to invest this quiet, everyday, tragedy with that realistic, pavement-centred, quality so many films aim for, but so many fail to achieve.

Read the rest

Cinematography of the Year 2002

2008-10-24T09:55:00.000-07:00

My slow meander through great cinematography efforts of the noughties continues. And it's not such a hard choice this year. 2002 was a great year for films, but not many stand out for their cinematography. I liked the photography in a good few films - Y Tu Mama Tambien; Mondays in the Sun; Punch Drunk Love, for example - but the award really comes down to a choice of three. Beautiful Bangladeshi Film, The Clay Bird (Matir Moina), my film of the year, Signs or my colleague's number one film of all time, Road to Perdition. All deserve commendation for excellent efforts in the cinematography department.

The Clay Bird is an exquisite film, carefully drawn and delicately photographed in romantic, shadowed and gentle filters and hues. Like with Road to Perdition, there seems to have been a conscious choice not to match the cinematography to the film's overall mood (controversial, I know, see below) and the end product is much more memorable and captivating as a result. Bangladesh looks stunning, sensuous and deep (much like it does in Brick Lane) and the film stands as a compelling reason to visit, as well as an interesting and fascinating historical account of Bangladesh's separation from West Pakistan (Bangladesh was formerly known as East Pakistan). This reminds me, I really must watch this again. This is a hugely underrated and memorable film, which looks beautiful. Cinematography by Sudhir Palsane.

Tak Fujimoto, who photographed Signs, is a well known cinematographer, whose most famous work is the bleak, haunting, foggy and dark landscape that encompasses The Silence of the Lambs. M Night Shyamalan said that he deliberately went for Fujimoto on Signs because of his insight into "Americana" (the pair had also worked together on The Sixth Sense) and it shows. Signs has that static, everyday, look, augmented, for sure, by the picturesque surroundings of endless fields and quiet, rural, beauty. In a way, being a 'blockbuster' (though not, or so I would argue, a typical or traditional one), Fujimoto had an easier job on Signs as people perhaps don't pay as much attention to this kind of thing as they might on other efforts (such as, indeed, The Clay Bird), but that only serves to make his achievement more interesting and commendable. Signs looks great, and there is, throughout, fantastic attention to the detail of how light and sound affect mood, tension and meaning.

However, the prize for 2002 goes to Conrad L. Hall, whose cinematography on Road to Peridition syncs perfectly with Thomas Newman's breathtaking and haunting score. Road to Perdition was originally a graphic novel and this shows throughout (though not in the in your face, overstyalised way, it did in Sin City), particularly in the film's most memorable scene, where Michael Sullivan (Tom Hanks) kills gangster John Rooney (Paul Newman) through lashing rain, darkness and streetlight shard, reminiscent of the finest French impressionist painting. I said earlier that the cinematography (generally dark, foreboding and claustrophobic) does not match the film's mood (which is - ultimately - uplifting). Some may disagree with this, but it is certainly how I felt and, as I say, I think this is a very difficult effect to achieve and Hall's work here is breathtaking. There are also some memorable contrasts - the wide vistas of the film's final moments by the living, breathing, wide ocean, stand out starkly against the scene I have just mentioned, for example. All in all, a dazzling result. Hall won the Oscar, and deservedly so. Unfortunately, he died before learning of the nomination but his fantastic achievement here stands as the best lasting testimony it is possible to imagine to a great talent.

Brick Lane (2007)

2008-10-22T14:30:00.000-07:00

This 2007 adaption of Monica Ali's best selling novel tells the story of Nazneen, a 17 year old girl growing up gently amidst the beautiful paddy fields of Bangladesh who is violently wrenched from her idealistic,innocent, life to marry an overweight , middle aged man living in East London. As the film goes on, Nazneen's life becomes more and more complex as she battles with her own emotions, her culture, her husband and the conflict between her new life and her old.

This is, in sum, a totally watchable, enjoyable film. What immediately strikes you about it is the overarching sadness that is entwined from the first reel to the last. I love films which manage to maintain this dolorous, distant, tone throughout. It is an incredibly difficult thing to do and I can only think of a few other films that manage it.

Read the rest

Eagle Eye

2008-10-21T14:47:00.000-07:00

Myfilmvault watches all the crap so you don't have to!

Eagle Eye isn't worth much discussion other than to point out that it's the new DJ Caruso/Shia Leboeuf effort. Caruso also directed Leboeuf in last year's far better Disturbia which, as reported here, was hit by a lawsuit from the rights holders to Rear Window for making what they claim was an unauthorised remake of Hitchcock's classic - which it unarguably was, even if it was quite enjoyable and a moderate success. Caruso and his screenwriting team have been a little more savvy this time, ripping off more than one Hitchcock film and coming up with their own plot - of sorts - to avoid any repeat litigation.

Eagle Eye bears more than a passing resemblance to North by Northwest, although this is a film very much with its own storyline (albeit an incredibly preposterous one.) Trouble is Leboeuf is no Cary Grant, Michelle Monaghan isn't Eva Marie Saint, Caruso isn't Hitchcock and Eagle Eye isn't very good. The problems, of varying importance, include Leboeuf's ridiculous facial hair, no chemistry at all between the two leads, Monaghan proving herself totally incapable of convincing in any given scene and a plot that holds up to no scrutiny at all. Worst of all, it's just not in the least bit interesting to a chase movie where the bad guy is a (spoiler in white) computer.

This is not worth the price of admission, so save your hard earned money. Heck, this isn't even worth the price of a cheap pirated knock off.

D

Burn After Reading

2008-10-19T04:48:00.000-07:00

Burn After Reading is not a good film. Despite being directed by the Oscar winning Coen brothers. Despite starring 3 Oscar winning actors in Clooney, Swinton and McDormund. Despite starring Oscar nominated actors in Malkovich and Pitt, Burn After Reading is not a good film.

This is ill-conceived, badly executed and a complete waste of everyone's considerable talents. You almost wonder whether the Coens decided to see if they could dupe audiences into liking something so awful. It plays as if they wrote it on the back of a napkin in a bar one evening - possibly whilst drunkenly celebrating last year's deserved Oscar success. No idea is dismissed as too stupid. No joke is seen as too unfunny. No plot thread is left tied up. What we have is a mish-mash of semi-formed ideas all thrown together with the unifying theme of isn't it funny when these great actors play idiots. Well, frankly, no it isn't.

I have no problem with their "lighter" stuff. After last year's outstanding No Country for Old Men, it was only right that they change pace dramatically, and they've had proven success with this sort of thing. O Brother went down very well, so did The Big Lebowski. For me their most successful foray into light comedy was the grossly under appreciated Intolerable Cruelty. It had a genuine wit throughout with wonderful set ups, charming performances, hilarious visual gags and terrific one liners. Everything in fact lacking in Burn After Reading.

This may get a pass or even a recommendation based on the talent involved but don't be fooled by anyone that tells you this is anything better than average. For my money it is significantly worse. The Coens have followed up their very best film with their very worst*. A real shame.

C-

*Worth pointing out I've seen all their films except The Ladykillers which got slated so may in fact be worse than this. If I'm completely honest I also probably just preferred Fargo to No Country for Old Men.

Dear Lord

2008-10-19T04:44:00.000-07:00

The UK all time box office top 3:

1	Titanic	1997	1998	US	69,025,646
2	Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone	2001	2001	US/GB	66,096,060
3	The Lord of the Rings; The Fellowship of the Ring	2001	2001	US/New Zealand	63,009,288

Mamma Mia has just passed $66 million and now has Titanic in its sights. Are we really okay with Mamma Mia being the UK's highest grossing film of all time?

Check out the review.

In The Valley of Elah (2007)

2008-10-18T04:05:00.001-07:00

Once again, I'm woefully behind the times, having wanted to see Paul Haggis' Iraq-war themed mystery thriller since it first came out. This time, I can't blame it on Leicester cinemas. So having finally managed to rent this last night, was it worth the wait?

Haggis' film, like all the others centred on Iraq, did not meet with box office success. It has been argued that American audiences cannot cope with the content as the country remains to this day impossibly divided (like the rest of the world) over whether or not the war was justified. It will be very interesting to see whether Ridley Scott's forthcoming Body of Lies (fronted by the heavyweight pairing of Di Caprio and Crowe) will fare better. Certainly, In the Valley of Elah pulls no punches and will not have gone down with everyone, depending on their politics. But this is a film review, not a political commentary, so I'll limit my observations to all things cinematic (for the most part at least!).

The film centres around Hank Deerfield (Tommy Lee Jones), whose son Mike, a soldier just returned from Iraq, goes Awol. Hank heads to Mike's base to try and uncover the truth behind what's happened. But when Mike's body turns up, dismembered and burnt in the New Mexico bush, Hank's investigations with local detective Emily Sanders (Charlize Theron) uncover a number of painful and hidden truths.

This is, throughout, a very sad film as Hank's military precision swamps his emotional compass, leaving others in his life alone and vulnerable. The moment when Mike's body is found is very sad indeed and Lee Jones does a brilliant job here (similar, in a way, to his fantastic performance in The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada) of conveying the emotional distance a military man has from his feelings, without ever letting go of that human touch and closeness all of us possess for those closest to us.

The various twists and turns, and the intrigue that accompanies them, are suitably gripping and, although it begins to drag a little towards the end, the film generally flies by at a well judged, emotionally fraught, pace.

Still, in the main, this is a character driven film and character-driven films live and die on their characters. Lee Jones, as I say, is excellent and holds the film together well and his calm, assured, mature and measured performance is well supported by the other male characters (this is a male dominated world in more ways than one), who are essentially soldiers and/or detectives. Susan Sarandon also provides excellent balance as Hank's despairing and defeated wife, although she doesn't get a lot of screen time. The same can be said for James Franco - I really like Franco. He's got the looks, the emotion and the ability to be a real star. I wonder if he will be. He never gets the opportunity to showcase his talents here (in a deeper role) and that is a shame.

Then there is Charlize Theron. I can't remember why, or when, this was, but I was convinced Theron was just another beauty on the box, whose looks had got her where she was. How wrong could I be. Theron ate up the screen, spat it out, stomped on it, then ate it again in her unbelievable performance in Monster. She does it again here, but in a much more delicate, subtle, and feminine way. I genuinely think this will end up being one of my favorite performances of all time. She is brilliant and mesmerising and owns every scene she is in, particularly one show-stopping moment when she utterly puts down three chauvinistic male detectives she spends the entire film fighting against. Whilst, perhaps, not being quite as effective, what this film highlights, in the briefest but yet most violent of lights, about the continuing oppression of women deserves mention in the same breath as Silence of the Lambs. It certainly maintains that dignified, non-preachy, aura that drives an emotional stick right through your heart. And that, primarily, is down to Theron. In a number of ways, its one of those ordinary, everyday, performances we're always harping on about on this site and Theron operates on that, incredibly difficult to hit, tone. Brilliant. Theron is fast becoming my favorite living actress anywhere in the world, almost to the point where I would pay to see any film she's in. She's also hilarious in Arrested Development by the way. Like her character (and unlike a number of Hollywood's other leading ladies), Theron has never got by on her looks alone, but her depth, brilliance and talent. Stunning in every sense. The chemistry between her, and Lee Jones, is also spot-on.

As I'm writing this, I think I'm realising that I liked it a lot more than I thought. It's not an easy film, and I wasn't sure I would return to it, but I think I will, at the very least for Theron's performance. Credit to Paul Haggis too, for a fantastic ending, when I thought he'd gone and blown it (although, Paul, if you're reading, that song which closes the film is awful and totally out of place). Sorry I ever doubted you. It ends up as a hugely effective, and (once again) emotionally shattering, last scene. I'm now sure I'll watch this again.

One final word must again be directed towards the most unfortunate man in cinema, Roger Deakins. Well, unfortunate in the sense that he's never won an Oscar when he should have won about five, but not unfortunate in that he is one of the most talented men in the world, and a man who is very clearly in touch with his emotions and how they relate, in turn, to other human beings and to light and sound. The cinematography is again magical and perfectly tuned in to the film's bloodline. Deakins manages this every time. It's no accident that I end up liking all of the films he photographs, true testament to the beauty and importance of the image and what it means.

Regardless of the political message (though I have to say that I can't understand why anyone would find it hard to accept, this is an accurate, and very sad, depiction of a very distant but very much genuine, reality), this is an excellent film, well worth watching. There is so much going on here, there will be something for everyone to enjoy, especially those, like me, who just love watching a great performance jump out of the television to such an extent that you believe she could be living next door to you.

A-

Gomorrah

2008-10-15T11:22:00.000-07:00

Italy's official entry to the 2008 Oscar race is a densely layered, sprawling look at the criminal underbelly southern Italy. Despite being completely scripted, Gomorrah retains a documentry feel throughout and almost plays out like an secret expose on the criminal masses.

The criminal organisation in question is that of Italy's oldest: the Camorra. Originating in the region of Campania and the city of Naples, it finances itself through drug trafficking, extortion, protection and racketeering. It is also reportedly responsible for at least 4000 deaths since the 70s.

Portraying any aspect of this on screen is an unenviable task but Matteo Garone has taken it on, both as director and one of several screenwriters. The Camorra has some estimated 7000 members, has existed in one form or another for 500 years and is organised into a reported 150 clans. Tackling such a huge entity borders on the imposible and whatever Garone had done would only ever have scratched the surface.

Gomorrah takes 5 tenuously connected characters and tells us the story of each, interweaving each others plot with that of the other 4 only in the loosest of ways. Any audience member expecting a neat resolution where the seemingly unconnected storylines suddenly fall into place will be disappointed. No attempt is made to tie anything together. Garone and his team of screenwriters have had the confidence to let the quality of each story line stand alone. And for the most part it is a wise decision. Each character is well written and well performed. The common theme in each thread is the exploration of how the Camorra affect the entire comunity - from those within the set-up and those who have ambitions to be in it, to those who want nothing to do with it.

Helping the documentry feel is the casting of non-professionals, 3 of whom have been arrested for real life crimes since the film was released. The book on which this is based is a non-fiction work by Roberto Saviano so this is as close to a documentary as you can get without actually watching one. And for the most part it works very well.

If I had to be critical I would say that the lack of focus probably went too far at times. Comparable films like Traffic and City of God have rather more definite links between the plot threads and you get rather more invested in individual characters than you can in this film, since everything feels so detached. It is very hard to be moved by anything that happens when you don't really feel you know the characters very well. Its deliberate detachment, delineated structure and roving focus means emotions are rather more muted than they perhaps should be - even scenes that should be shocking or saddening fail to elicit the emotions they perhaps should.

Nevertheless, it's an extremely accomplished film and one that is particularly well directed. Several scenes stand out and give audiences a taste of a director who has a flair for visuals. One overhead tracking shot that's followed by a static shot of a member of the Camorra walking off into the distance is particularly memorable.

Gomorrah is certainly something I'll be revisiting - I suspect it might play a little better second time around. Whilst it wont end up threatening for awards with me at the end of the year, don't be surprised if I'm in a minority. I think critics and awards givers will not be shy at all in rewarding this ambitious, and for the most part, highly successful attempt at filming the near-impossible.

B

Pre Bedtime Quickie

2008-10-13T14:22:00.000-07:00

What Happens in Vegas (2008)

This new post title has nothing to do with the fact that Cameron Diaz (or Ashton Kutcher) are in this film. I promise. I just can't be bothered to write a full review.

That actually doesn't reflect the quality of the film, although I do always struggle to find a lot to say about Rom Coms. I really thought I would hate this but have to - begrudgingly - admit that I enjoyed it, though it certainly won't be changing my life.

This has literally the worst plot in film history. Jack (Kutcher) and Joy (Diaz) meet in Vegas, get drunk and get married. They then realise they hate each other, whilst standing next to a slot machine. Joy gives Jack her last quarter as they march of, in total hostility, to get as far away from each other as possible. Jack puts said quarter in said slot machine and wins 3 million dollars. Both claim the money. It ends up in court. A judge with the combined intelligence and legal insight of Sarah Palin and my arse then decides that he can somehow freeze the money and force the two of them to live together and 'work' at the marriage, otherwise they will never get the money back. 'Hilarity' (well, its never quite hilarity, but it's decent entertainment) ensues and the inevitable happens which I won't write because you've already guessed it.

Despite this absurdity, this really isn't a bad film, which is saying something because so many of these films are really really bad. This is enjoyable and it passed the time nicely. Kutcher's character is utterly obnoxious and hugely grates on you until he wakes up to himself but, that aside, the whole thing is, generally speaking, an enjoyable 'romp' even if the performers and cinematographer won't be winning any MyFilmVault awards in 2008. All in all, a nice way to spend an even being distracted from all this constant nonsense and bullshit about the fucking credit crunch. Anything that can take you away from that for an hour or two can't be all bad.

B-

Cinematography of the Year 2001

2008-10-12T03:01:00.001-07:00

I'm loving this award. It's a very difficult one to call most years, and 2001 is no exception. Once again, there are a number of noteworthy candidates.

Janusz Kaminski was my frontronner. He bequeathed AI a beautiful, haunting and distant look which adds to the sublime sadness of this divisive film. Regardless of whether or not you loved (like me) or hated (like everyone else) this film, credit must go to Kaminski for photographing such a lasting and memorable vision of the future, the likes of which have not been seen since Ridley Scott's magnificent Blade Runner.

There are others well worthy of a mention in dispatches. I loved the pastel-shaded, gentle and beautiful Americana of Antonio Calvache's work in In The Bedroom and some of the vistas in the Fellowship of the Ring (the opening montage, coupled with Cate Blanchett's haunting and rapid dialogue, is stunning) are unforgettable, if slightly derivative (in places). Andrew Lesnie deserves credit for that, it was some undertaking after all.

Black Hawk Down (Slawomir Idziak) looked great, with great use of filters, as did Donnie Darko (Stephen Poster) (again, witness the opening bike-ride scene accompanied by Echo and the Bunnyman's sublime 'The Killing Moon'). And, even though I hated the thing from start to finish, Hannibal (John Mathieson) looks great too. I particularly remember one image of police sirens crossing a bridge in a beautiful, pensive, and smoky light.

However, I've gone for Declan Quinn's work for Mira Nair's Monsoon Wedding. Once again, this is a film of light and look which reflect its mood. Monsoon Wedding feels and plays like a leaf slowly turning to its natural colour by the unfailing passing of the year. It's deep, sensuous, mystical, exotic, romantic and beautiful. The use of colour is striking and perfectly framed. The whole film, particularly perhaps its pivotal moments, is simply washed in a radiant, sensuous, tropical blend of heady passion, feeling and meaning, a movie of transcendental and atavistic luminescence and spectral conjuring. A great, if underrated film, and a worthy winner.

Catch Up With The Classics

2008-10-11T05:27:00.000-07:00

Record of a Tenement Gentleman (Nagaya Shinshiroku) (1947)

Yasujiro Ozu made one of my favorite films of all time - the magnificently emotional and sad Tokyo Story - so I was very grateful to receive two Ozu box-sets for a recentish birthday. I'm just sorry it has taken me so long to get round to seeing them. This is the first in my Ozu catch up.

This 1947 effort is one of Ozu's first films. With a running time of a measly 71 minutes, the film focuses on Kohei, a young boy abandoned by his father who has gone off to Tokyo to look for work. Kohei follows a poor tenement dweller home and the tenement then bicker and argue over who is to look after the boy. Then, of course, the inevitable soul-searching is done and lessons are learnt, albeit rather hastily, given the running time.

The main problem with this film is indeed its running time. It is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to achieve the kind of emotional punch in the face Ozu is going for here in an hour and ten minutes. You are left feeling that you simply don't know the characters well enough, don't quite fully understand where they are coming from, and the eventual emotional turnaround, therefore, feels far too quick and out of shape. It's a lovely idea and what there is of it is, for the most part, done very well. It's simply that there is not enough of it. A real shame. This feels like a three hour film squeezed into 60 (or so) minutes.

The performances are generally excellent. Shoko Lida is exceptional as the harsh, brutal, unmarried Tane who ends up being tricked into taking the boy in. It's an excellent performance and it is mainly down to her that the film, and its turnaround, works at all. Hohi Aoki is full of emotion and sadness as the young, abandoned, boy. It's fortunate, though, that it is mostly a silent part (he's got the expression and the emotion down pat) because he's awful whenever he has to open his mouth, especially when it's to cry. Also nice to see a fleeting and measured appearance by MyFilmVault lister Chishu Ryu.

This is worth a go. It's only 71 minutes of your life after all. The cinematography is noteworthy and full credit must go to Yuuharu Atsuta for the way a desolate, broken and sad post WW2 Japan is landscaped. The music is sweet, enchanting, and adds another, much needed, layer to this thin effort. And, of course, there is Ozu himself. No one does abandonment, isolation, loneliness and sadness like Ozu. And with this being filmed in 1947, there is again another layer of meaning in here. Like so much of the best Japanese cinema of this era, the film carries a strong socialist message (naturally reflective of a communalistic culture like Japan's) about duty, helping others and about right and wrong. It's just a shame that, like so much else about this film, there is simply not enough of it to fully drive home the point. Like ships passing in the night, this is a silhouette of something strange and beautiful but one you know you are never destined to know on a deeper, more soulful, level.

B-

Look Familiar?

2008-10-11T05:12:00.001-07:00

When a low budget foreign horror film becomes a cult classic you know the remake is inevitable. [Rec] is probably myfilmvault's film of the year so far. It sits in both mine and my colleagues top 3 spots and is the only film that's received an A or better from both of us. My only regret with it was that I never got to see it in the cinema - an experience that would have been wonderful. I guess I can see the remake in cinemas instead - small compensation, although it can't possibly match the brilliance of the Spanish original. Can it?

Check out Matt's review here.

I really shouldn't like this...

2008-10-10T12:04:00.000-07:00

...but I do. I know it is completely derivative but maybe a Bond song has to be. It is certainly better than either Die Another Day or the theme tune to Casino Royale, whose title I can't even recall. Something about knowing your name was it? Anyway, I can imagine this playing quite nicely over the opening credits later this month. I know I posted a link a few weeks ago but here's the official video...

Shark in Venice

2008-10-10T04:59:00.000-07:00

Oh Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Top 25 Scenes of All Time

2008-10-08T13:36:00.001-07:00

#20 - Perfidia (Lau) - Days of Being Wild (A Fei Zheng Chuan) (1990)

There is probably nothing remarkable about this scene whatsoever. Yet it has lingered long in my mind from the first time I saw it, like the metaphorical bird that permeates the dialogue of this beautiful and stunning film and Wong's later effort, 2046 (which, in a way, follows on from this). And what more can you ask from a scene than that.

As impossible to ignore as it is to forget, this simple, yet perfectly put together, scene is stamped by a beautiful, tired, languid monologue, by Andy Lau's sweet and heartbroken cop as he wanders towards a different and seemingly emotionless future ("and I went off to join the army") through the rainswept streets of early 1960's Hong-Kong with 'Perfidia' taking over the moment Lau's words fall off and into the rushing, lonely, drains. It is a moment which offers the perfect symmetry of music, emotion and word, Lau's quiet and understated, but destroyed and sick, words echoed perfectly by the dolorous, plangent, chords of Perfidia, as the rain falls and falls and a distant future awaits.

It is also the film's pivotal moment, the instant where the film's two main male protagonists become irreversibly destined to meet and it is sublimely done. Wong leaves his viewers with the emotional equivilant of being hit by a sunami and yet left waiting desperately for the next one to hit. This is one of his most underrated, least watched, least studied, and least understood films, but it is still genius. It's a beautiful, languid, hazy, film, which lives on through its dazzling use of filters, song, rhythms, chords, words and performances. All are irresitibly intertwined in this one single moment of timeless and echo-drenched brilliance.

Taken

2008-10-08T09:30:00.000-07:00

Sometimes there is pleasure to be had from the check-your-brain-at-the-door, testosterone fuelled action films aimed exclusively at those cinemagoers that carry a Y chromosome. Coming under the umbrella of guilty pleasure, its a film that knows it's pretty stupid, knows it wont win much favour from critics, but aspires to entertain the masses on a Friday night. Where women get their kicks (and $120 million at the UK box office is some serious kicks) from Pierce Brosnan singing ABBA songs, men get theirs from well choreographed fight scenes, death-defying stunts, elaborate car chases or, preferably, a combination of all 3. Plot is optional - it's probably better if there is one, but it's not completely necessary - just as long as we get some cool fights. Other qualities that most moviemakers see as essential, but which are considered non-obligatory in films marketed for the Grand Theft Auto generation include: good acting (see anything starring Paul Walker); character development (totaly unnecessary) or convincing dialogue (doesn't go down as well as lines like, "Okay cocksucker. Fuck with me, and we'll see who shits on the sidewalk.")

Of course some things can transcend the action genre and break out into something of genuine quality. The TV series 24 is sometimes, okay frequently, unrealistic but it also features high quality direction, cleverly layered plots and some absolutely first rate acting. Motion picture examples include Die Hard, Speed and, most recently, Philippe Morel's District B13 - a highly enjoyable, action heavy race against time set in the world of the French criminal underworld. The success of that French-dialogue film has seen Morel and his screenwriter Luc Besson graduate to the English language action film with Taken, a better than average sophomore effort starring Liam Neeson.

Neeson dominates the film's running time as an ex-secret agent whose daughter is kidnapped whilst in holiday in Paris. Cue a very unhappy Nesson, who is given a rather arbitrary 96 hours to save her life and restore order to the world. He manages to get to Paris, from the States within about 45 minutes and then proceeds to conduct his own investigation at the speed of lightening. In fact you perhaps wonder had he not had to make it across the Atlantic, whether they might have given Neeson a 90 minute deadline and had the film play out in real time a la 24. There's certainly no time to pause for breath - probably a good thing in films like this because it doesn't give you a moment to reflect on any inconsistencies or silliness - you just soak it all up as Neeson electrocutes one bad guy to a painful death before snapping the cervical vertebrae of another.

This is a film very much in the 24 mould. The body count is piled high as Neeson, as the Jack Bauer character, dispatches bad guys with efficient ease. Neeson is very capable in a role he has not ventured into before, although he certainly doesn't match the quiet gravitas of Kiefer Sutherland, who has perfected the part over the last 5 seasons. There is however enough to enjoy - on a kind of silly, mindless level - to get a pass from me. It's not bad. It's probably not exactly good either but it has enough energy to keep you entertained for a couple of hours. You'll forget everything about it within 4 seconds of leaving the theatre, but there are worse ways to pass the time.

C+

Son of Rambow (2007)

2008-10-07T13:28:00.000-07:00

How refreshing to see a British film not centred around gangsters, guns and girls and directed by Guy. How refreshing, too, to see it breakthrough into the mainstream, or at least semi mainstream. This probably belongs firmly alongside other British sleeper hits like The Full Monty, East is East and Bend it Like Beckham.

The film, set in a quiet, leafy, green, part of England in the 1980's, is focalised through Will, a naive, quietly idealistic, young boy brought up by his single mother, who is the member of a religious brethren. By accident, Will meets Lee Carter, a boy who, on the face of it, could not be more different than him. Again by accident, Will ends up watching Rambo: First Blood at Lee Carter's house (he is normally forbidden, by the brethren, from watching television) and is captivated by it. The two then set out to make a film, Son of Rambow, and set out on a journey together during which they come to realise they might have more in common than they had ever thought...

It's a nice message and it's well done, although the same point is made (and certainly more effectively) by the brilliant and bittersweet Stand By Me (and a host of other 'coming-of-age' movies). The chemistry between the two young leads seems natural and sweet, although during the moments when they are apart you cannot help but feel that Will Poulter (Lee Carter) is carrying Bill Milner (Will). It might seem harsh to criticise such a young actor, especially one who is clearly putting everything into what he was doing (and clearly loving every minute), but it isn't a hugely effective performance and the film's overall emotional punch suffers as a result. Poulter, however, as the enigmatic and charming Lee Carter, is excellent and is more than able to carry the film. His is a talent I would expect to hear more of in the coming years. The supporting cast is good as well, full of bright eyes and bright minds and the film is able to bubble and churn along at a nice, bright, pace that reflects the dreamy English summer which forms its backdrop. It is particularly hard not to like Jules Sitruk's breezy effort as Didier Revol, the exotic French exchange student who charms the whole school with his charismatic 'otherness'.

Son of Rambow is a perfectly enjoyable way to spend an evening or a Sunday afternoon, though it's not a film you should expect to change your life. It's well done, well directed and, for the most part, well acted, but it falls short of greatness. The effects grated with me when they were supposed to be charming and reflective of childhood imagination and freedom and the dialogue is often not up to much. That said, although it is shmaltzy in places, there are also a few very well done, and surprising, more serious and innovative moments that strike emotional chords when you least expect (the scene following Dider's departure from the school is particularly noteworthy in this regard) and director Garth Jennings deserves credit for that. The score is also awesome in places.

Some may say it's unfair to criticise a film for not changing your life. And I would agree, as far as that goes. I enjoyed this and it never once drags, but it certainly didn't inspire me enough to ever contemplate watching it again. And that, perhaps, is the essence of the dividing line that separates the cinematic great from the cinematic good.

B-

Top 25 Scenes of All Time

2008-10-06T05:02:00.000-07:00

#21: Truman Works it out (Carrey - The Truman Show) (1998)

The Truman show was one of those films that divided audiences right down the middle, you either loved it or hated it. There never seemed to be any inbetweeners. I loved it, even though I'd be prepared to admit it perhaps hasn't endured quite as well as it might have done. It felt, at the time, like it, together with Carrey's excellent performance at its heart, had a timeless quality, but I now think it has been tarnished a little by the passing of time. That's surprising because, in this Big Brother obsessed world filled with 'reality tv', Truman is a very relevant film. And although it hasn't aged brilliantly, it remains a very very good film with some splendid performances anchoring it throughout. I couldn't believe Carrey wasn't Oscar-nominated. He proved he could not just act but act brilliantly and he gives a show-stopping performance here as the naive, charming, Truman, who becomes increasingly damaged and overwhelmed by his perplexing situation.

There are some great scenes - Ed Harris' "cue the sun" moment still gets me to this day - but this is the highlight. It is just a mesmerising moment, as Truman stands in the middle of traffic, his arms outstretched, with Burkhard Dallwitz's score ripping your nerves to shreds. It's the look in Truman's eye which makes it. Try and imagine how difficult it is to convey the look of a guy who has just realised he has been living his entire life as the star of his own television show. Not easy is it? Carrey unleashes an astonishing amount of empathy on the audience in this brief moment and Truman's pain, uncertainty and anguish are there for all too see. It's a stunningly effective result. The kind of scene you are waiting for all film if you're doing a re-watch. And I really love the music here, it is quite simple, almost like a heartbeat, or maybe a heartache, perfectly tuned in to the film's rhythm. A great moment well worthy of its place in a list remembering the greatest scenes in film history.

Recount (2008)

2008-10-04T05:32:00.000-07:00

Okay, this was kind of a TV special, but it was feature length, had a host of great actors (and not just names, these guys really are good - Kevin Spacey; John Hurt; Tom Wilkinson; Laura Dern; Dennis Leary; Ed Begley Jr. (not to mention the likes of Bob Balaban) - all, I think, beloved by the authors of this site) and highly appropriate given the recent content of my colleague's posts and the upcoming American presidential election. And I watched it last night so it's timely.

With election fever hitting America (and this side of the channel) ahead of next month's tight presidential election, More4 have been screening a host of programmes/exposes etc. on American politics. This is perhaps the highlight - a film recounting the tense days and months following the flawed Florida count in the 2000 election between Gore and Bush, as both sides scrapped to have various votes recounted or not recounted.

The story is familiar and the drama of the piece surrounding it is suitably gripping - all of it washed in nice, austere, filters reminiscent of a number of political films and TV shows. However, really and truly, this is a character piece, driven dynamically by a host of superb performances. I genuinely don't know who was my highlight - Spacey's driven and idealistic democratic lawyer; Hurt's contrasting, weather beaten, downtrodden, highflyer who plays as though he has the weight of Washington, if not the world, on his shoulders; Leary's charismatic, flamboyant, Gore-ite, always at Spacey's side; Dern's superb Katharine Harris (the secretary of state who held ultimate sway over this election in Flordia), who looks perfectly like a cat caught in the headlights of a car she mistakenly believed to be the bright lights of fame, fortune and power heading her way; or Wilkinson's sharp republican, Tom Baker, who might have switched from being a democrat but has lost little of his pathos or humanity in doing so. Wilkinson probably has - towards the end - the best scene, but the consistently great moments are provided whenever Spacey and Leary are together on screen, reminding the audience just what a talent Denis Leary is and causing us to wonder what has happened to him. In short, the cast was brilliantly selected and all seem passionate, interested and involved in what they are doing - and that, ultimately, is bringing an important political story back to the popular imagination without being preachy.

Yes, there is sympathy for the democratic cause, but it is not all cut and dry and the republicans score punches too. It is, ultimately, like in the politics it reflects, down to the viewer to interpret as she sees fit - this is never clearer than in the final scene where row upon row upon row of stored ballot boxes from the Florida election stand stoically before you. Somewhere in there, you are left thinking, the final truth lies, though we are unlikely to ever know what it is. The film asks serious questions of the American political process (without ever saying, flatly, "the result would have been different"), particularly about disenfranchisement, and has wider matters in its sight as well - shouldn't America get its own house in order before blindly bestowing "democracy" on the rest of the world? A very interesting and thought provoking film well worthy of anyone's time, especially if, a., they are interested in politics and the political process and, b., if they just love to watch great actors doing a great job.
B+

My Week

2008-10-04T05:30:00.001-07:00

Apologies for lack of posting. Will try and rectify this weekend.

Amusing

2008-10-04T02:08:00.000-07:00

Random Updates

2008-10-02T14:14:00.000-07:00

Minor site updates have been taking place. I updated the features main page which is still looking a little barren but we'll endeavour to add more to it. Check it out here if you've not yet done so. Worth having a look at our greatest actors and actresses, which now has a rather simple home page. I may well try and come up with something fancier at some point!

Quite a fitting time to have a look at Paul Newman's page which I've updated with our most recent messages about the great man. He is currently our second most honoured actor of all time and once we've caught up with that chunk of his filmography we've not seen it's disctinctly possible that he'll make it to number one.

Dear God

2008-10-02T13:57:00.001-07:00

Someone get this woman a brain. In honour of tonight's VP debate here's some of Palin's brilliance. She makes George Bush look like a nuclear physicist.

Spin

2008-10-02T13:53:00.000-07:00

Low quality but still worth a look - quite embarrassing what the media gets away with.

I've Loved You So Long

2008-09-29T14:04:00.000-07:00

Believe the hype. Kristin Scott Thomas will be back in the Oscar mix after what seems an interminable wait. She may even win. She certainly deserves to.

Her performance in Philippe Claudel's gripping film is one you take notice of immediately. Within 5 minutes you know you are watching something special. By the end of a film in which you've spent nearly every frame with her enigmatic, captivating character you'll be ready to hand her an Oscar.

I've Loved You So Long opens with the a lingering shot of a raw, uncomfortable Juliette (Scott Thomas). She sits alone in a waiting room clinging to a cigarette - her make-up-less face blank and emotionless. The appearance of her sister Lea (Elsa Zylberstein), whom she hasn't seen for 15 years, yields the merest hint of emotion, and you sense 99% of that hint takes the greatest of efforts. When introduced to Lea's family, Juliette cannot help but put up a defensive, withdrawn exterior. Painfully uncomfortable in just about any social setting she withdraws into herself even further. Adjusting to her new life lodging with her sister's family, it is only with Lea's mute father-in-law that she can feel totally at ease.

It is difficult to say too much more about I've Loved You So Long without giving away details about character and plot. Going in with too much knowledge would harm a screenplay that is carefully constructed to reveal information gradually and carefully, but if this makes the film sound overly self-conscious it is anything but. It is actually a rather simple, contemporary character driven piece of the kind the French do so well.

A story about one woman and her inner demons can only work if that woman is relentlessly fascinating. As each layer of her Juliette is carefully removed, we get closer and closer to the real Juliette - the one hiding behind her masked countenance. And as we understand more and more about Juliette, we understand more and more about the truth behind the last fifteen years of her life. Each minor revelation drives the story forward towards a simultaneously uplifting and heart-wrenching climax.

Scott Thomas is an exceptionally gifted actress who has flirted with awards bodies all too infrequently in her career. Too often found in small, supporting roles, she has nevertheless come to attention of this site on 3 occasions. First coming to prominence in Four Weddings and a Funeral, she was perfect as the archetypal Brit with the stiff upper lip; a woman who suffers in silence with her unrequited love for a guy whose attentions will always be elsewhere. Her second performance of note found her in the attentions of the entire film industry - in The English Patient Thomas played opposite Ralph Fiennes and they engaged in a passionate, unbridled affair. She again found favour as the refined Brit but one this time whose passion was requited, although their love affair soon plagues her with the guilt of infidelity.

Many would point to The English Patient as a career highlight but for me she delivered her finest turn in Robert Altman's exceptional Gosford Park. Once more it was a small but perfectly formed role, and once again she plays someone in the upper classes, but she imbues her performance with enough nuance to avoid typecast: desperation and despair, wit and mischief. The only negative was that she wasn't on screen for long enough.

How refreshing then to see her dominate a film's running time. I've Loved You So Long is a film that is totally transfixed by Juliette, despite her having none of the usual trappings of a lead character. Juliette is clearly both beautiful and intelligent, but conveys instead a dowdy, fragile facade. Ably supported by Elsa Zylberstein, who may also receive awards notice, Scott Thomas really has landed the role of her career.

Claudel's screenplay might accurately be described as sparse, but that may convey the wrong message for this is an extremely accomplished film - the economical writing is one of the film's strengths. All of the film's characters, especially Juliette, say so much with so little dialogue. Scenes are no longer than necessary - there is no extraneous detail. Everything is focused on character development and the unfolding of a mystery that will have you completely absorbed from start to finish.

This is quite simply the film of the year. If I see a better one before the curtain comes down on 2008 then I am in for a real treat. If this movie and its star are not smothered with awards glory when the time comes to honour the films of the past 12 months then it would be nothing less than a travesty. Go see it. Right now.

A

Legend

2008-09-27T07:56:00.000-07:00

Not sure if it is possible to miss someone you have never met. But if it is, I miss this guy. A classy guy, an exceptional actor, a legend. The world will never be the same.

Cinematography of the Year

2008-09-26T05:19:00.000-07:00

2000

(NB I couldn't find an appropriate picture from the winner which would do it justice, so I thought it best not to include one).

Thought I'd start a new thread with a new award - for the best cinematography of the year, starting back in the year 2000 and moving on. And what a year to start with! No easy award this.

First a word on cinemtography in general. I am of the view, and I think my colleague probably is as well, that great cinematography can really make a film. A case in point - last year's The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. Roger Deakins' memorable photography added an extra layer of beauty and brilliance to what was already an incredibly beautiful and brilliant film and the light and backdrops reflected the film's enclosing claustrophobia and taught mood. Not that good cinematography can make a rubbish film good (last year's appauling, but somehow critically lauded, Stellet Licht (Silent Light) is an excellent case in point) but the fact that it looks great, and that the light, shadow, filtration and backdrop reflect the film's mood and tone, can tip an already very good film over into greatness. For instance, it was partly (though not totally) Deakins' brilliance that - for me - meant that Jesse James won the battle of the J's over Jindabyne and Juno. How a picture looks is arguably as vital a part of its meaning, plot, pace and drive as anything else, including the performances and direction. Controversial perhaps, but, that, for me, is just how important the look of a film can be.

The year 2000 presents a hard choice indeed. Looking over my top 5 for the year, and the other films I've seen from 2000, I struggled to separate some stunning efforts. A good year for films and certainly a good year for cinematography. So who to single out? Peter Pau's oscar-winning, sometimes mindblowing, effort in Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon? Edward Lachman for his dreamy, hazy, ethereal wonderland in the underrated Virgin Suicides? Yu Wang's clangy, industrial, mechanic backdrop to the excellent Chinese Noir, Suzhou River? Tim Orr's Americana, pastel-tinged, otherworld in David Gordon Green's beautiful indie debut, George Washington? And there are others - Cast Away looks great, my colleague would not forgive me, I think, for failing to mention Gladiator and I should also give a mention in despatches to Matthew Libatique's dark, distressed and claustrophobic world in Reqiuem for a Dream which perfectly matches the film's mood.

So, after some agonising, I have settled on Steven Soderberg who self-photographed Traffic. Traffic stands as a true testament to the 'auteur' vision (a director having total creative control over a picture) made famous and championed by the likes of Francis Ford Coppola and Terrence Malick in the 1970's. Sure, Soderberg has help - particularly from Steven Mirrione's snappy editing - but Traffic just has that majestic, everyday, look which adds a great tone and shade of reality to its epic, panoramic, scope. From the streets of LA to the Mexican deserts and streets of Tijuana, Traffic just looks great and, as I say, bridges that often impassible gap which means that the audience can sense, touch and breath the reality of the dusty streets and sun-bleached deserts. Stephen Gaghan, who wrote the screenplay, gave a similar lightness to Syriana, which will surely come into contention for similar reasons when I get to 2005. It's a real achievement to Soderberg that Traffic should be singled out in such a strong year. Kudos to him and to all those cinematographers who made 2000 such a vintage year for their incredibly difficult, but vital, artform.

The Ones That Didn't Quite Make it

2008-09-25T13:29:00.000-07:00

#2: The Line Up (Spacey; Del Toro et al.). The Usual Suspects (1995)

Although the final scene of this film is it's most famous - and possibly rightly so - this remains my absolute favorite. Unfortunate not to make it into my top 25, this great moment manages to tread the fine line of being the plot's pivotal moment whilst also providing the film's funniest moment, which has since attained cult status. It is (a then largely unknown) Benicio Del Toro's drugged up playboy Fenster who provides the killer line - it's the "what da fuck" at the end of it that really makes it. Having, in the previous scene, delivered a strut worthy of gracing the pinnacle of any 'Greatest Walks in Cinematic History' list, the underused Fenster gives the serious, taught, noir tone of this classic thriller a lighter touch, ably supported here by a superb supprting cast. Has any short scene been as effective as this brief moment in providing that vital slight shard of insight into it's charcaters in that briefest of flashes on which all films aspiring to greatness must inevitably rely? Awesome.

Top 25 Scenes of All Time

2008-09-24T09:21:00.000-07:00

#22: In Rustin Parr's House (Donahue; Leonard) - The Blair Witch Project (1999)

No film, I remain totally convinced, has ever suffered from being pre-hyped as 1999's The Blair Witch Project. Released to huge acclaim stateside, the pre-Uk buzz killed the film as loads of people left the cinema disappointed and underwhelmed. "It just wasn't scary" was the refrain I constantly heard coupled with "it made no sense". Since I was working in a cinema at the time, by the moment I actually got round to watching it, my expectations had totally cooled by the constant negativity of customers. Therefore, I was totally unprepared for how damn scary this was.

To be sure, the ending - the scene under consideration here - is by far the scariest part but that's hardly a criticism. Borrowing its tone (in a way) from the likes of Carrie and Halloween (a tone also borrowed by 2008's "Apluser" REC), The Blair Witch leaves you with that horrible, gut-wrenching, feeling of uncertainty about what was going on, with its incredibly eerie interplay between superstition, the supernatural and the reality of a disorienting, limby, wilderness. I still don't have an explanation for what is actually going on in this scene (which I won't explain, because it'll ruin it for anyone who hasn't seen the film), and that is just the way it should be.

Incredibly creepy and unsettling, this is truly an ending that stays with you through that long walk home through the Halloween cold and darkness, up your dark, creaking stairs, and into the refuge of your bedroom not knowing what's lurking there as your shaking fingers uneasily turn out the light. A poor night's sleep beckons...

For those who haven't seen it. Rent it now! And make sure you pay attention to ALL the characters and happenings in the film.

Pineapple Express

2008-09-23T15:01:00.001-07:00

You wait ages for a stoner comedy then 3 come along at once. In the last 12 months the silver screen has been graced with Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay, The Wackness, and now the latest in the seemingly endless line of comedies from the Judd Apatow stable: Pineapple Express. Trouble is of course that no-one with any modicum of taste actually looks forward to stoner comedies. That's not to say none of them are any good. And that's not to say they're not all rubbish either. I'm just saying that if you look forward to these sort of films then you've got pretty dreadful taste in films.

Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, Road Trip, Dude Where's My Car... need I go on? All dreadful. But something a little weird happened this summer. The Harold and Kumar sequel actually opened to reasonable reviews. The Wackness opened to even better reviews. And Pineapple Express virtually opened to critical raves, with some proclaiming it a near masterpiece. Having seen it (or to be more accurate, having suffered through the first 50 minutes before walking out) I can only wonder whether they had sampled something rather potent themselves, before viewing this thing.

Pineapple Express is a new strain of weed so amazing that even the smell has stoner Dale Denton (Seth Rogen) fall in love with it. He describes it as smelling like God's vagina, and if you think that's funny then this may well be the film for you. After purchasing some of the said weed, he heads of to serve a summons notice to a guy who just so happens to be someone very high up in the illicit Los Angeles drug trade. Whilst doing so, Dale witnesses this guy murder one of his rivals - cue panic, fleeing from the scene and a whole lot of trouble for Dale and his drug dealing friend Saul Silver (James Franco.)

After fleeing Saul's apartment our "heroes" start worrying that the drug overlord may be able to triangulate their cell phones, even if they aren't using them. Dale suggests to smash his phone on a rock. Saul thinks that he's never heard of such a great plan in all his life and does the same. However his attempt to smash his cell phone involves him throwing it quite limply at a tree in a wood some distance away. He misses. They exchange stoned out histrionics before deciding they had better go look for his phone. This is the point at which I left, happy in the knowledge that the outcome of their impending search for his phone interested me not one bit. In fact had a great big fireball engulfed Los Angeles at that moment, I would have thought it a reasonable trade off for 30 million innocents to die just so long as these two perished too.

The trouble with Pineapple Express is that it lacks characters of the charm of those in Superbad, The 40 Year Old Virgin or even Knocked Up. I know my colleague had problems with Seth in Superbad but I happened to really enjoy the character, and no-one could possibly not find Michael Cera's Evan amusing. Steve Carell and Christine Keener are always going to be eminently watchable, even if the film itself flags somewhat. And then you had Katherine Heigl breaking out from TV in Knocked Up, accompanying a much more sympathetic Seth Rogen role. Here we have two guys, probably played quite accurately, but played nevertheless with untold levels of irritation.

It's been a long time since two guys were that annoying, but granted, I've not seen Sean William Scott in anything for a while. But quite clearly I'm in a minority: 73% on rottentomatoes suggest most critics could tolerate their behaviour. Not me though. The rambling, unpolished script was penned by Rogen and his Superbad collaborator Evan Goldberg and needed someone taking a pair of scissors to it and trimming it considerably. In fact it probably needed a chainsaw taken to it. There's a lot of fat in the movie, and I'm not talking about Rogen's waistline. Quite clearly these guys are talented - Superbad is after all my number 6 film of last year - but this is nowhere near that level. The humour hear relies solely on whether you think watching two guys acting stupid because they are high is funny. I don't.

D-

Insane Friday

2008-09-23T11:11:00.000-07:00

Five - count them, FIVE! - films released this weekend that I actually would like to see. They are...

Appaloosa - Ed Harris' western opened in the States to mixed reviews, but it has lots of positive things going for it including Ed Harris, and Viggo Mortensen (last years movieyears winner for me.)

Redbelt - a new David Mamet film starring a whole host of decent actors. Mamet's films are characterised by ensemble casts and snappy dialogue, and this looks no different. If it can match the unheralded near brilliance of something like Spartan (which no one saw but was great anyway) then it'll be well worth spending 2 hours with.

Righteous Kill - which I kinda know will be pretty rubbish but it stars Pacino and De Niro so you have to watch it anyway, not that either have done anything worth watching for years...

Taken - a child kidnapping thriller distinguished by an excellent trailer in which Liam Neeson speaks to his daughter's captors for practically the whole running time. The director's last feature (District B13) was very very good, Neeson looks on great form in the trailers and everything about this looks pretty slick. It might be just as dumb as 90% of other thrillers but something tells me this'll be highly enjoyable.

and a film that has come from off the radar to one of my most anticipated of the year...

I Loved You So Long - a French drama that has landed to rave reviews for the film itself, but particularly for star Kristin Scott Thomas who just happens to be one of the best actresses around. 3 movieyears nominations from me for Four Weddings..., The English Patient and Gosford Park - is another on the horizon? She was wonderful in a small role in last year's French smash Tell No One. I am eagerly awaiting this one.

The Proposition (2005)

2008-09-22T14:21:00.000-07:00

I had started watching this before, recorded the end, then recorded over it. Whoops. I was totally engrossed, I remember, but had to switch off for some important reason which I can't remember. So when I saw it cheap the other day, I couldn't resist. So was my £3 investment worth it? Was the film worth the wait?

This John Hillcoat helmed film, set in late 19th century Australia, centres on the Burns brothers, Arthur (Danny Huston), Mike (Richard Wilson) and Charlie (Guy Pearce) and how their fates become tragically intertwined by the titular proposition. That proposition - made by pensive, idealistic sheriff (an excellent Ray Winstone) - offers (bloodthirsty outlaw) Charlie the opportunity to save both his and his younger, vulnerable, brother Mike's, lives by killing (even more bloodthirsty and outlawish) brother Arthur within nine days. If it sounds convoluted, it isn't. The film grips in its twists and turns in a similar, if slower and more thoughtful, way to last years No Country For Old Men. At least - just like in fact NCFOM - for its brilliant and lavish first hour, which sees human, character-driven, drama and taught plot development given equal footing by director Hillcoat.

This is becoming the era of the 'postmodern' Western. This is not straight Western fare in the traditional manner, but probably belongs in the same sought of company (owing to its treatment of the subject matter and the depth it places in both character development and issue-based metaphor as well as perspective) as No Country..., The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada (the pick of the bunch and a genuine classic) and, for some (though not necessarily me) Unforgiven (another undoubted classic) as well as a bunch of others. This adds another layer of interest because it's an Australian Western, although similar themes (racism, "civilising" the wild, lawless, frontier, violence, brutality, the disappearance of morality) are inevitably explored, and very effectively too.

The intriguing, Machiavellian, plot and story is driven along apace by excellent performances from the ensemble cast. Pearce, Huston and Wilson are brilliant as very different brothers, Winstone is superb as the harassed, thoughtful and troubled lawman and there are notable supporting performances from the rest of the cast, including a compellingly drunk John Hurt. The standout, however, is a brilliantly snivelling and pretentious turn by David Wenham as upper-class Brit Eden Fletcher, who hires Captain Stanley (Winstone) in the first place. He delivers the films best lines and adds a different layer of immorality and stupidity to the piece. Emily Watson, on the other hand, is strangely ineffective - a great shame for those who, like me, adore her.

As I say, the ending is something of a disappointment, though not totally ineffective. It is one of those where characters suddenly start behaving inexplicably contrary to the emotional and psychological universe they have inhabited for the rest of the film. That lets it down. It's still well worth watching, though the ending slides it down from what would certainly have been an A grade of some kind. A shame as there are further brilliant elements. The cinematography is stunning - all wide, sunkissed, panoramic vistas of the outback hanging and looming large over the great pantheon of deadly, taught, violence through which the characters blindly stumble. And the soundtrack adds excellent backup to the cinematography and captures the film's mood brilliantly. It's not a flawless piece, but its still full of decent performances, taught, well put together scenes and an overall feel well worthy of a recommendation. It's a pity that the ending does not live up to the gripping and relentless first two acts.

B+

Poster Etiquette

2008-09-21T02:53:00.000-07:00

Check out the names on this rather dull poster for the upcoming De Niro, Pacino thriller Righteous Kill. You can almost imagine them squabbling over who was the most famous and should get their name first. Clearly De Niro won that battle but Pacino seems to have been placated by having his name appear 2 inches higher up! It ruins the aesthetics, although the poster's a load of crap anyway. There's at least 2 other versions of this poster both with the weird name arrangement and one version where the names are on the same plane. The only one I've seen out on the streets so to speak has Pacinio's name higher up. Not sure whether I'm looking forard to this one or not. I kind of am, but at the same time kind of know it'll be rubbish.

Tropic Thunder

2008-09-20T13:13:00.001-07:00

Tropic Thunder is an enjoyable satire on war films, and Hollywood in general, from Ben Stiller who stars both in front of and behind the camera. Stiller shared writing duties with Justin Theroux, but took the helm in the director's chair on his own and has made the most accomplished film of his career. He also takes the lead role but it's costar Robert Downey Jr who steals every scene he's in. Stiller and Downey Jr join Jack Black as a trio of stereotypical Hollywood actors with inflated opinions of self. The three stars are cast in a Vietnam war movie, but when the director literally blows up the stars don't quite realise that the cameras are no longer running, and they attempt to complete the film anyway. A decent number of the film's laughs tend to be concentrated in the opening act, including some decent spoof trailers before the film proper. But Downey Jr. ensures even when the film loses its way ever so slightly once the stars are split up, it remains thoroughly enjoyable whenever he is on screen. He plays a 5 time Oscar winner who disappears so convincingly in his roles that for this one he has undergone skin pigmentation surgery to immerse himself in the role of an African-American hero. His sub hip-hop, jive-talking machine gun delivery is a delight and worth the price of admission alone.

Supporting turns from Matthew McConaughey and Tom Cruise bolster the star power, as if it's needed it, and Cruise especially enjoys himself playing an arrogant studio honcho. I can't quite work out what Stiller was thinking letting Cruise do a solo dance over the end credits - it' s bizarre, but reasonably amusing I suppose, although it worked much better earlier in the film when it actually felt like it fitted in to the screenplay. Minor and occasional quibbles aside, Tropic Thunder is a very good comedy that confirms Downey Jr's talent as one of the biggest around.

B+

Another way to die.

2008-09-19T15:17:00.001-07:00

The theme tune to the upcoming Quantum of Solace.

Hear it here.

Sound a bit like they put half a dozen previous Bond songs in a blender, tipped half away then pasted togther what was left.

Sounds pretty awful at first but it grows quickly. Actually I think I quite like it!

The Ones that Didn't Quite Make it

2008-09-18T08:24:00.002-07:00

...into my top 25 scenes of all time.

#1 Cindarella Boy (Bill Murray) Caddyshack (1980)

Thought I'd add a brief spattering of some of my other favorite scenes that didn't quite make it into my top 25 (in no particular order). Going from the sublime to the ridiculous, I thought I'd start with one which is sublime and ridiculous in equal measure, the pure genius that is Bill Murray in Caddyshack (1980). It's timely as well since today sees the beginning of golf's biannual showpiece (unless you believe Hunter Mahan) The Ryder Cup. I'd certainly have Murray's bumbling, Vietnam-vet, groundsman in the American Team. He'd add a touch of class.

Not much to say about the scene except it's hilarious and I think - quite uniquely in a way - that holds whether you've seen the film and know the character or not. So here he is, the Cindarella Boy himself...

A note on Murray's genius - this was all ad-libbed.

Catch Up With The Classics

2008-09-18T08:24:00.001-07:00

In the Name of the Father (1993)

With the cinema still horribly lacking in films I want to pay my credit-crunch reduced money to pay, I'll have to keep going with my catch-up reviews. This one takes me back to 1993's autobiographical, multiple-Oscar-nominated, In the Name of the Father. In fact, I've even regressed to my original title for these posts after extensive market research confirmed this to be our readers' preferred title (well, our one reader said she liked it).

The film is based on Jerry Conlon's account of the aftermath of the Guildford Pub Bombing. For those - like me - who don't know the history, Conlon and 3 others were falsely accused of, and imprisoned for, carrying out the bombing and a number of their family members were imprisoned for assisting them.

The film is - as it should be - a shockingly stark slap in the face for those (me) who don't know this story and especially those (not me) who maintain a modicum of faith in the British Justice System. Any last thread of belief I had disappeared sharply and brutally with the progression of this gripping, well-judged, and superbly performed effort. The story of the Guildford 4 belongs firmly alongside other British judicial failings, such as the well known case of Satpal Ram. There are many others, but this is a review, not a political diatribe, so I'll press on.

The first thing to say about this concerns the quality of the performances. Daniel Day Lewis (rightly) and Emma Thompson (less rightly, but not enough to make me complain) were both nominated for commendable efforts. Day Lewis has, in parts, to carry the film, and its a huge historical weight to carry on his charismatic and supremely talented shoulders, but he does excellently. However, the real star of the show, from its very first scenes, is Pete Posthlethwaite. Posthlethwaite provides the film's stand out moment, very early on, as his obvious blind love for his son sees him run headlong into and through a full scale riot between British troops and IRA sympathisers with only a small white handkerchief waving amidst the teargas and gunfire for protection. It is a stunningly beautiful depiction of love and how it collapses the self and it is a motif that permeates the film as Posthlethwaite battles the injustice to which he and his son have been subjected with pure dignity and love. And it is a film with a last scene that adds a whole new layer of powerful meaning and beauty to everything that has gone before. The relationship between Gerry and his father is the film's key driving force and the essence of that is confirmed by Gerry's final words.

A word for the supporting cast too - they are excellent. The depictions of British arrogance and blind faith in whatever it is they find themselves doing by, in particular, Corin Redgrave (as chief inspector Dixon) and, very briefly (but powerfully for what he symbolises), Alan Barry as an officious Home Office archivist (and others who also play establishment figures) are highly effective and deserve mention in the same breath as Edward Fox's frightening portrayal of Dyer in Gandhi. All in all, a hugely effective ensemble performance and the cast deliver the message with great and polished effectiveness.

It's a little too long and weighty to be a film I'll return to again and again. In a way, of course, that's a very unfair comment. Schindler's List suffers in the same way. It seems unfair to judge all films on the criteria that the greatest should make you want to return to them again and again but I think that is how, ultimately, all films should be judged, weighty and timely or not. It may be best just not to make this a criticism so I won't and I'll finish by saying that I'd recommend this to anyone. Especially in these times when extensions of the terror laws, of imprisonment without charge and the suspension of Habeas Corpus, remain high on this government's agenda. Of course, what In The Name of the Father gets across is an incredibly heightened, taught and sensitive feeling of injustice that remains powerfully with you after the credits. A similar story for those detained under the provisions of the terror laws in recent years. The vast majority are released without trial. That is concerning. But their story tends to disappear into the ether of misunderstanding and misrepresentation about their religion which pervades the national press.

If this review has political overtones, then that is down to the film. It makes you think and it makes you worry in equal measure. And that, more than anything else perhaps, is to its great credit.

B+

Maguire Confirmed for Spiderman 4 and 5

2008-09-17T04:52:00.001-07:00

Good news for some, including me, as it had been rumoured that Maguire was bailing, leaving huge webby shoes for someone to fill. Couldn't see the point of them continuing without him to be honest. I'll be looking forward to these since the three previous efforts have all earned a B+ from me, including the last one which met with mixed critical reception, to say the least. That said, I think the filmmakers will have to do something a bit different to excite me and will have to plough new ground. Otherwise, it might be a bit of a case of 'seen it all before' and they might well regret, after all, cramming so much into Spiderman 3. Still, Raimi is an intelligent filmmaker, the character is well established, there is room for development of the story arcs and room for development, so there is hope. Also, the franchise certainly hasn't shown signs of decline the way, say, the first Batman franchise did after Batman Returns, or the sharp plummet of the hopeless Matrix trilogy (and I could mention more, I'm sure). So, I'll keep my fingers crossed and look forward to the appearance of these.

I think my colleague might take more convincing....

Cormac McCarthy

2008-09-16T05:33:00.000-07:00

American author Cormac McCarthy is the man of the moment. Tipped in some quarters to win the Nobel prize for literature, McCarthy's talent has not escaped Hollywood either. Last year saw his novel No Country For Old Men work cinematic wonders for the Coens and next year promises more from the Viggo Mortensen fronted 'The Road', McCarthy's 2006 novel about a desolate, ash-strewn, post-apocalyptic America.

I've just finished reading The Road as well as McCarthy's most celebrated novel, Blood Meridian, so thought I'd pen a quick post to this man of the moment and some of the challenges that will arise from bringing his difficult novels to the big screen.

The post was mainly inspired by this:

http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/cormac_mccarthys_blood_meridian_cant_possibly_become_a_movie"

It's an article, which I agree with, about the difficulties that will be involved in bringing Blood Meridian to your local Odeon. Ridley Scott was linked to the project but, equally rightly, pointed out that the trouble with making Blood Meridian into a film is that it is unbelievably violent. Having just finished it, I can testify that Scott is not lying or exaggerating. Were it to be made, it would almost certainly be the most violent film ever made, at least by any mainstream filmmaker. And yet, IMDB reports, a version of Blood Meridian is in production.

Blood Meridian is a great book, a truly great book, totally unlike anything I've ever read. Violence is endemic to it, like it was to the world it depicts. Based on real events, the novel focuses on a time, at the beginning of the 1850's, when a rebel group of American soldiers, under the command of General Glanton, himself under the sway of the unbelievably abhorrant, amoral and fascinating Judge, head out to procure for themselves as many scalps of native American Indians as they can get, as the trade in them is thriving. If that sounds violent, even that gives no true picture of what actually goes on in this book (take a look at the quotes in the article I've hyperlinked above), it is honestly hard to see this passing any censorship test without losing the tone, the drive, the message, (all of) which make the book so powerful and unforgettable. I would almost dread seeing a cinematic version of Blood Meridian and yet feel compellingly drawn to the idea that I'd like someone with uber-talent to give it a go. We'll have to wait and see. But who would have the talent - and the physical presence - to play the role of the Judge, in Hollywood today, is beyond me. One blogger suggested Vincent D'Onofrio, and he - a hugely talented and underrated actor with great physical presence and menace (just think back to how unforgettable the toilet block scene in Full Metal Jacket is) - would be a great choice and would add another layer of potential interest to the idea of Blood Meridian the film.

McCarthy's is a rare talent. His worlds are always seemingly unbearably bloody and you would be forgiven for thinking that he has a very negative view of the human condition. Until you read The Road. In a way, The Road and Blood Meridian are perfect partners, the one demonstrating the worst, the other the best, of the human condition and they strike an absolute contrast between innocence and sin. I can't wait to see The Road though I remain hugely sceptical that any director will be able to reproduce its vast emotional landscape on screen. I wait to be corrected. As I do about Blood Meridian. Like the novel, a film version would have the potential of being one of the greatest ever made, were it done properly and the added pull of rewriting the Western myth in the Hollywood mainstream is restelessly compelling. Yet I pity the directors of each. For they must not only deliver great films, but must also deliver films fully worthy of the enigmatic, relentless, rare talent of Cormac McCarthy.

Top 25 Scenes of All Time

2008-09-11T14:08:00.000-07:00

# 23: The Swimming Pool Scene (Traffic) (2000)

A very understated scene that lives long in the memory. From its very beginning, with the superbly limned awkward faces on the American cops' faces as they stand uncomfortably in the light-blue water chosen by the magnificent Benicio Del Toro's Javier as a safe haven to chat, this scene eats the screen alive and is for me the film's pivotal moment.

I suspect many readers would find this a surprising choice, at first glance, perhaps a scene many people have not thought twice about. However, much is at stake here. Javier is putting his life at risk and, importantly, the prejudiced Americans naturally assume that this is for money or some other personal gain. The looks on their faces are classic and priceless when he starts going on about baseball.

Although I'm obviously going to say that this is Del Toro's scene as much as it is his film, the two bit-part, lesser known actors, who play the American cops, are brilliant and bring the scene to life with the looks on their faces. So much acting is credited for dialogue delivery, but this just serves to remind you (like some other forthcoming scenes in my list) that non verbal communication and expression is just as important. Kudos too, for Steven Soderbergh and his intelligent and measured direction, which is spot on and brilliantly done.

So, baseball, then. I have written previously about cinema's relationship to morality and ethical thinking and will write about this again. Traffic is, to me, one of the most important ethical and political statements to have been made by Hollywood in the past decade or so, rivalling, perhaps even surpassing, the end of The Dark Knight. Traffic reminds you of the power images and stories have in terms of delivering a moral message, surely, at least in my view, surpassing that of academic philosophers (controversial!), not least because a successful firm can only be successful if it shares the same intersubjective mental environment and therefore typically has far greater potential for speaking to (and, of course, with) the masses than academic moral philosophy. The swimming pool scene is key to this, not fully hitting home until the final scene as Javier sits, quietly and unsassumingly, in the stands, watching a baseball match he was responsible for bringing about. It's a strong point. Poverty can bring people down, even into the hard crime depicted in Traffic, especially when they don't have opportunities, even simple leisure opportunities, something different to do in the evening. Javier knows this and his sacrifice is all the more compelling in that stunningly beautiful final scene, which I've only not included in my list because I think the one I have included is the scene that really, in the final analysis, makes that one so special. Stunning, emotional and thoughtful, a scene that lives as long in the memory as the flash of a snowflake caught falling in a moonbeam formed by the first echoes of winter.

The Wackness

2008-09-10T13:04:00.000-07:00

The Wackness is not so much a film, but more of a marijuana-induced hazy reminiscence of that perfect summer. In the Wackness it's the summer of 1994. A summer of hip hop and dope. A summer of mad 100 degree sunshine, and a fly girl.

Writer/director Jonathan Levine quite obviously grew up in the mid-nineties. This is a love letter to 1994 and to perfect summers. This is the quintessential pot movie. Indeed it may play even better if you watch it whilst stoned. Going far beyond the fact that the main character deals pot, all of the main characters smoke it frequently, and that plots and subplots of the film deal with either selling or using the stuff, everything about this film is all about pot, and I do mean everything. Long stretches are shot slightly out of focus, the cinematography is deliberately saturated at times, at others, underlit. The score, punctuated by hip hop classics of what some have described as the greatest year in hip hop history, is a sun-drenched, chill-out beat. Marijuana is so interwoven in the tapestry of this film that you would not be in the least bit surprised that the entire cast and crew were permanently high during shooting.

Everyone can remember that summer after high school when finally, after years of relentless study, you have no more exams, no more deadlines and no more lessons. Long-awaited freedom. College seems light years away. The feeling is bliss. How do you make such a momentous time in your life even more perfect? You hook up with a girl waaaaaay out of your league, who by some miracle of fate not only bothers to acknowledge your existence, but actually invites you to spend time with her. Luke Shapiro (Josh Peck) is not the biggest loser in the school, but is perhaps the biggest loser out of the cooler kids. He sells dope, which gives him a little more street-cred, but is not on the radar of the pretty girls. This is his summer though, and all that changes when he starts hanging with Stephanie (Olivia Thirlby), the step-daughter of Luke's psychologist Dr Squires (Ben Kingsley). Squires smokes more dope than anyone else in the film, and when he and Luke develop something of a friendship, Squires is quick to warn him to be careful with his step-daughter who Squires believes is "just bored."

By necessity the plot is threadbare, since this is very much an exercise in style, and a film about character. It would not be at all appropriate for a dense, complicated narrative and in fact for 45 minutes I was wondering whether there was going to be any plot at all. Thankfully the merest hint of one does shows up when Josh and Stephanie hook up. When the loser gets the girl, as seems to be obligatory in the Judd Apatow school of comedy, it usually makes you roll you eyes and sneer at the implausibility of it all. Here though it is surprisingly convincing. Peck, who had appeared in nothing of note prior to this, is genuinely accomplished in his role. Thirlby, a movieyears nominee by Matt for her turn in Juno, shines once again, but it is the chemistry between the two that is most enjoyable. Josh is lame, awkward and nervous - Stephanie, confident, sexy and cool, yet somehow, they work together, and you actually find yourself rooting for the drug dealing loser, even though you know you shouldn't, and even though you know the Squires' words of wisdom will prove prophetic in the end.

The Wackness is decidedly not for everyone. In fact unless your male and born between 1974-1979 I'm not sure there's that much to enjoy here. Despite fitting that demographic, I was very close to bailing after half an hour. None of the humour worked for me and the stylistic choices were rather grating. By the end of the 99 minute running time, I was pretty much won over however, and this was almost exclusively down to Peck and Thirlby. Ben Kinglsey gets top billing, and although he is his usual excellent self, this is a film that belongs to the two young actors, on whom the film's success or failure depends. They don't let it down.

B-

They Can't Honestly Be Surprised

2008-09-10T12:56:00.000-07:00

The makers of Disturbia have been slapped with a lawsuit from the copyright holders of the second greatest motion picture in cinema history, aka Rear Window.

The law suit cites the fact that Disturbia is so similar in story to Rear Window and the story it is based on (which the Rear Window people also hold the copyright to) that they should have obtained rights to the story. No shit. It was a complete rip-off. Not an entirely unsuccessful one as it happens, as my review pointed out at the time. But a rip-off nonetheless.

I can smell an out of court settlement coming. I can't believe they can hope to defend this successfully.

Get Smart

2008-09-07T05:02:00.000-07:00

This is turning into a year of walk-outs for me, with Peter Segal's remake of the successful 1960s TV series marking the 4th time I've bailed on a film before the end this year alone. The problem with Get Smart is that it just isn't funny at all. Not one bit. The script is so lacking in charm, wit or originality that you wonder how they went forward with it. Exit lines are painful, jokes are tired or cliched and, whilst some talented actors do their best with the material, there is not much they can do to salvage any shred of dignity from a screenplay so lacking in quality.

I kind of knew what to expect from the trailer, but one notable critic declared that you can "forget the trailer, because it doesn't do the film justice." Little did I know that the painfully unfunny trailer actually managed to cram in all of the film's highlights.

Steve Carell is great. He always is. I love him in The Office, even if the writers insist on making his character too broad at times. He is at his best when he's playing things more subtlely and when given that opportunity, there is no-one better on TV. His big screen career has been a little mixed however. Enjoyable turns in films like Little Miss Sunshine and The 40 Year Old Virgin, have been balanced by disastrous projects such as Evan Almighty - an ill-advised sequel to one of the worst films of 2003.

Get Smart will probably not hurt his stock too much however, it having taken over $100 million at the US box office. In fact, earning so much in such a poor film may even make his stock rise slightly, since audiences clearly like him. There's certainly not many other reasons to have turned up for this one, although seeing Anne Hathaway very capably branch out into a new genre is one of them.

Plotwise, Get Smart is a James Bond spoof - a bumbling secret agent and his significantly more savvy sidekick go undercover to thwart a crime syndicate intent on world domination. It's been done before, although never really that successfully. Johnny English and Spy Hard, both films with very engaging leads, failed miserably and of the 3 Austin Powers films, only the first one manages to elicit any chuckles. Even then, as one critic wryly observed, Mike Myers' recent stuff has been so bad you wonder whether you actually did find him funny in the first place.

So Get Smart can take its place alongside these other failures. It is surely a task not beyond the best screenwriters in the business; spoofing James Bond must be possible. Perhaps though the very fact that so many of those early Bond films were tongue in cheek makes it a difficult proposition. You're trying to outdo something that works so well as an action film, and one that has its fair share of humour anyway. And for that matter it's often funnier - compare the Austin Powers spoof name Alotta Vagina with the Goldfinger version Pussy Galore. Which is cleverer? There's no contest.

Get Smart is probably not so bad that it deserved me walking out after 50 minutes but I realised I couldn't be bothered to stick it out so I left. I've probably sat through worse if truth be told, and maybe Get Smart will successfully appeal to youngsters. However for any discerning adult, you have been warned.

D

Very quick 2008 reviews

2008-09-04T12:56:00.000-07:00

Married Life

Well cast, well acted drama about (un)happily married life in 40s suburbia. The Ira Sachs penned adaptation of the John Bingham novel is a nicely paced, convincingly plotted yarn that allows the cast (Chris Cooper and Pierce Brosnan in particular) to shine. Lacking that special something to elevate it to greatness, this is nevertheless worth your time.

B

Journey to the Centre of the Earth (3D)

Whilst Beowulf gave us an exciting glimpse of a 3D future, 'Journey' simply shows us how irritating it can be when a director tries to hard to make the audience go "wow - it's 3D". Fraser, who's great in the right role, looks too much like a second string all-American quarterback who's been hitting the cheeseburgers, yet is still the least annoying screen presence in a bumbling triumverate who go looking for the mythical Jules Verne location. The whole thing is tedious and I bailed as soon as they hit the centre of the earth and I realised things were not going to be any more exciting there than they were on the particularly unexciting surface.

F

Death Race

Absurd, ludicrous - at times completely non-sensical - yet somehow a bit of a guilty pleasure, although not really since it is never quite good enough for that. I did like the cinematography and set design however, and Ian McShane is always good value these days. God only knows what Joan Allen saw in the script though - maybe her copy was written on 100 dollar bills? Statham is what he is and the plot has more holes in it that a hula hoop factory, but it actually speeds by at a fairly decent pace and is always reasonably watchable. It is directed by Paul Anderson - no not the good one - the other one. The good one is Paul Thomas Anderson. This one is Paul WS Anderson. The helpful middle name/initials is how you tell which one directed which film. That and the fact that one directs stuff like Magnolia and There Will Be Blood, and the other does stuff like Mortal Kombat and Resident Evil. Would be a bit surprising if WS's resume read Mortal Kombat 2, Soldier, Alien vs Predator, Punch Drunk Love. Maybe the WS stands for What a load of Shit? Bit unfair really though cause I *almost* enjoyed this.

D+

Adam's Top Female Performances

2008-09-02T22:56:00.001-07:00

Of all time no less.

Here.

Top 25 Scenes of all Time

2008-08-22T15:34:00.000-07:00

#24: Merrill and Graham on the Sofa (Signs) (2002)

Only on #24 and already controvsery arises. Most people hated Signs. Except me. I fucking loved it. If you don't believe me, read my 'In Defence of Signs' on this very site. I particularly loved Joaquin Phoenix's performance - he gives one of those absolute, almost inaudible, depictions of ordinariness you would almost miss it if it wasn't so startling. From his little nudge towards Lional Wolfington in the army recruitment office (genius) to his frighteningly real telling off of Graham's son Morgan (Rory Culkin) for saying "I wish you were my Dad", Phoenix's performance bristles with imagination, insight, depth and brilliance. This is the film's standout moment, reflective of (but sadly not on a par with) a similar-ish scene from Jaws, at least in terms of the emotional context it sits in and the emotional punch it's attempting (very successfully as it happens) to throw.

Merrill and Graham swap stories whilst trying somehow to bridge a large divide that has fallen between them, despite (as we learn from another part of the film) Merrill's best efforts. It could be one of those awful scenes that shamelessly plugs the film's name ("are you...the sort of person, who sees miracles, who sees signs), but it isn't, somehow remaining magical, ordinary and believable. A conversation you could genuinely imagine two men having - and with a suitable emotional distance between them - upon finding out that aliens might be possibly about to destroy all civilsation. It's just so believable and so watchable, I look forward to it relentlessly whenever I start watching Signs (which, I'm afraid, is far too often). In fact, this has got me in the mood, I might even go and watch it again now.

Oh, and a warning - I'm afraid Signs might well appear again later in my list.

The Orphanage (El Orfanato) (2007)

2008-08-22T14:52:00.000-07:00

It's been a good year (well a good decade really!) for Spanish-language horror films (owing in no small measure, of course, to a certain Guillermo Del Toro, who settles for production duties here) was, in many ways, topped off with this, which received critical and box office success and can even be seen lurking in the chart section of our revered high street stores these days. Tags such as "this years Pan's Labyrinth" (weighty and far off the mark I'm afraid) have been flying around like witches above woods in Burkitsville. So, in this epic head-to-head between two Spanish-language horror films - this and the mighty (and slightly more recent) [REC] - who comes out on top?

Well, as avid perusers of the sight will have realise, REC has set a high benchmark for this to measure up to, scoring two A grades from two different MyFilmVault critics, a feat few films have achieved! Does El Orfanato - darling of the critics whereas REC has slipped a little more under the critical radar - measure up in terms of shocks and frights?

Unbelievably, for about 100 minutes of its 105 minute run time, it - almost - does. El Orfanato goes for the same, deeply disturbing, level of psychological terror attached to the supernatural that has served so many horror films so well, Halloween, The Blair Witch and, of course, REC, to name a few. Set in a truly creepy mansion that was once the orphanage of the title there are suitably enough creepy backstories of kids being abused, murdered and bullied to cause a more than a few hairs to stand on end from the forearms of this well ard 29 year old critic. One kid who appears in the scariest mask you've seen since Michael Myers visited the old joke shop in Haddonfield (it's a cross somewhere between the Scarecrow from Batman Begins and Jason in Friday the 13th Part Two - the best 'part', of course) is particularly terrifying, and I do mean terrifying, especially in one scene with heroine Laura, easily the film's standout moment.

Also like REC, the performances here were far better than those normally found in horror films and Belen Rueda puts in a perfectly anguished, tormented and guilt-ridden performance at the film's centre. Fernando Cayo is also okay as her cynical husband. In a way, the quality of the performances is reminiscent of another Spanish-language horror, Delo Toro's own this time, the excellent and superbly performed, Devil's Backbone.

Yet, you are left with the horrible feeling throughout that the ending is going to be shoddy, as so many horror films are. That is the difficult thing with horror films and why horror directors elicit more sympathy from me than others might - for a horror film to be truly effective, the fear must live with you, deep in your blood, long after the credits role and it is, genuinely, a very, very, difficult thing to do effectively. However, after a hundred or so minutes I was left eating my words and reaching for an A grade of some sort (probably a lower one as it happens). However, the next five minutes are mind-bendingly awful and a staggering disappointment to the extent that I felt genuinely cheated having invested a hundred minutes of my life in genuine terror only to be soundly let down by this abject failure of knowing how to end a film. It is a grotesque ending, completely unbefitting of the film and, equally, the bold 5 minutes that precede it. Why didn't they just leave at the moment they should have left it (those who have seen it will know what I'm talking about)? Absolutely teeth-gratingly annoying. Like getting a ticket to watch the England football team and finding out you've just paid £50 to watch Beckham and Lampard sleep their way through the latest game when you'd been assured they would be left on the bench. That, I think, is a very apt analogy.

This plummeted from (probably) A- to B- in a shocking (in the wrong sense) 5 minute spell. The moral of the story? If you're going to make a horror film, be brave enough to end it like a horror film, otherwise don't bother with the shocks and do what you want to do. Either way, you'll have a more effective whole and not this ramshackle effort that's trying to be all things to all men, women and ghosts.

B-

I've just watched [Rec]

2008-08-21T19:12:00.001-07:00

Matt gave it an A+. I rolled my eyes, scoffed and reassured myself that he was mad. I knew I'd hate it. I hate all these sorts of films. He loved Blair Witch, I gave it an F. He loved Cloverfield, I could only muster a C+. I don't really like many horror films because the acting is usually atrocious and characters behave incomprehensibly. I only watched it out of politeness. My verdict...

...

...

...

I loved it. Go read his review if you haven't already. The film is the best of its kind by a distance.

A

List Time

2008-08-21T12:36:00.000-07:00

Today: My 25 Greatest Male Performances
Tomorrow: My 25 Greatest Female Performances
Ongoing: Matt's 25 Greatest Scenes

Here's my top 25 men. There's a fair representation of villains on the list - Dr Szell (Laurence Olivier - Marathon Man), Don Logan (Ben Kinglsey - Sexy Beast), Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins - Silence of the Lambs). I suppose Hitler (Bruno Ganz - Downfall) counts as well! One of the greatest villains of all time was given to us about a month ago and I couldn't leave out Heath Ledger's phenomenal performance as The Joker, which also makes the cut. My numero uno though is though is a good guy - an ordinary Joe if you like. It is one of the few performances that also makes Matt's top 25. It is relentlessly captivating - an astonishingly good performance from an astonishing actor.

Top 25 Scenes of All Time

2008-08-17T13:44:00.000-07:00

#25 - Raining Frogs: Magnolia (1999)

I thought I'd do a rundown of my top 25 scenes of all time and try to explain, or at least give context to, my decisions.

There's not too much to say about this to be honest and to be honester I'm too tired for a long post anyway so that's all good.

To begin with - my criteria: My sole criteria is this. These are the top 25 scenes which I would watch, in order, over and over again. They are the scenes I would happily jump to and watch over and over and over again.

I guess the raining frogs scene is a little bit different from the rest (or most of them) because there are no words and nothing major (in the sense of story defining) happens. It's just one of those sublime moments in film of great originality and brilliance that comes from nowhere and stays in the mind. It is also probably the only one that subverts my criteria as, truly, it cannot really be viewed on its own as it works so well as part of Magnolia's vast, magnificient and total cinematic landscape. There is so much to love about this film and I think this moment, an instant of quirky, subversive, genius, bottles the film perfectly. It's just great and I couldn't not include it in my list.

Modern Classics #3

2008-08-16T07:58:00.000-07:00

" Sooner or later everyone has to take sides, if they are to remain human."

I don't keep a record of which films I've watched the most, but if I were to do so it would not surprise me one bit of Philip Noyce's The Quiet American came out on top. This is quite brilliant from start to finish - I love every single second of its 96 minute running time and a tenth, eleventh or twelfth viewing only serves to reinforce all that is exceptional with this adaptation of the short Graham Greene novel.

Noyce's film opens with Craig Armstrong's deep, aching strings playing over the opening credits. It's a soundtrack that pulls you in immediately, gripping you even before the picture has started. Noyce opens the film visually with shots of an opium pipe being lit, followed by a beautiful Vietnamese woman in a composite shot with a series of explosions. It is a such an elegant and simple way of adding a hint of foreboding that will hand over the entire picture. This sense of impending doom is further amplified by the haunting female vocal that accompanies the opening bars of Armstrong's brilliant score. The agonising, beautiful vocal gives way to Michael Caine's voice over. "I can't say what made me fall in love with Vietnam. That a woman's voice can drug you? That everything is so intense - the colours, the taste, even the rain." Noyce's challenge is filming this intensity, and making us fall in love with a place that has hypnotised the film's lead character.

Read More

Insomnia

2008-08-15T20:52:00.000-07:00

No not the film starring Al Pacino and Robin Williams (and a decent film it was too) but actual proper insomnia. Actually I suppose it is not that proper since I haven't been going to be before 4 am since the Olympics started, but it is now 5.01am and I am so wide awake it is unreal.

Phelps' win in the 100 Fly was absolutely incredible. Watching the super slo mo you think they've made some kind of huge mistake since the Serbian seems certain to touch first but, almost impossibly, Phelps does manage to get his arms over and win by 1/100th. Quite insane. This was even more unlikely that the 4x100 relay win, in which Lezak overhauled an unassailable lead with about 10m to go, and that was the most unlikely thing in the history of unlikely things.

Great TV and a shame it comes to an end tomorrow. Normally you wait for the swimming to get out of the way and for the athletics to start but I cannot believe the athletics will get anywhere near the excitement of the swimming. Shame that the BBC's inept anchor Hazel Irvine keeps telling lame jokes that make me want to kill someone - slightly takes the edge off of what is otherwise faultless coverage. Staying up for 3am sport has never been this easy.

The Dark Knight (2008)

2008-08-15T14:55:00.000-07:00

I finally made it. Walking into the cinema, I had that awful sinking feeling of a film over hyped and over loved that would end up being a disappointment. It has been impossible to avoid the hype, not least over Heath Ledger's final performance (said by all to be stunning, even by those who did not love the film), and my film thermometer has been rising. So, was this worth the wait?

Find Out