Just Another Movie Blog

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

2012-02-12T20:40:00.000Z

“Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” is a film that thriveson weepy-eyed sentimentality, almost to a fault. It has a premise that sonaturally provides this that even if the execution of the film had been utterly incompetent,the images recalled and the memories revisited by the premise would nonetheless still hit home and hit hard. As it turns out, the execution here by director StephenDaldry (“The Reader”) and screenwriter Eric Roth (“The Curious Case of BenjaminButton”) are more than competent, resulting in a film that is cloyingly saccharinebut agreeably sweet and dramatically engaging.

The premise is this: Oskar Schell (newcomer Thomas Horn) isan eleven-year-old boy living with his mother (Sandra Bullock, “The Blind Side”)and father (Tom Hanks, “Larry Crowne”) in a New York apartment. Oskar’s belovedfather, a jeweller, is on the 105th floor of the North Tower of the World TradeCentre when a plane hits the building on September 11^th, 2001. Oskar’sfather dies, having presumably been one of the many who were forced to jump totheir death on that fateful day.

A year later, now living with his widowed mother, Oskarsearches in his father’s closet and discovers a small envelope sitting inside ablue vase. Inside the envelope is a key, and written on the front of the envelopeis the word “Black.” Oskar can’t think what the key could be for or where itcould possibly fit, but, having been filled with a sense of adventure by his latefather, becomes determined to find out the answer.

And thus we have an adventure on our hands, an adventurethrough the five boroughs of New York, as well as a possible sixth boroughOskar’s father had previously asked him to find. Oskar tries to fit the mysteriouskey into every lock he comes across, to no avail. He decides to visit every personwith the surname “Black” living in New York. He meets some interestingcharacters, most notably a woman (Viola Davis, “The Help”) whom Oskar doesn’t seemto notice is going through domestic troubles.

Oskar himself is also a very interesting character. As playedwith much talent by 14-year-old Horn, Oskar is emotionally cut off and sociallyinept, much more so than most boys of his age. He has a fear of many everydaythings (public transport, elevators and bridges, for starters) and walks thestreets of New York shaking a tambourine to comfort himself. We are left tobelieve that he may have Asperger’s syndrome, although this is never clearly statedin the film. As a main character, Oskar’s emotional blankness is occasionallyproblematic, but Horn’s performance nonetheless remains captivating and also a verypromising start to the young boy’s acting career.

Oskar confides in an unexpected source: the elderly strangerwho has recently moved in with his kind and caring grandmother (Zoe Caldwell),who lives opposite Oskar’s apartment building. Known only as the Renter (Maxvon Sydow, “Minority Report”), this man does not talk, instead communicatingthrough pen and paper. The two quickly befriend each other and decide to tackleOskar’s ambitious quest together, knocking on doors, ringing doorbells andtrying out locks for the key to fit in. At age 83, Sydow turns in a finesupporting performance here that is deep, delightful and emotionally compelling,all done without the slightest utterance of a single syllable.

It would be all too easy to brush “Extremely Loud” aside as nothingmore than manipulative Hollywood tosh, which in some ways it is. Unlike many, Idon’t believe the film is tastelessly using the real-life tragedy of 9/11 forthe sake of cheap and fast emotional resonance; even if it were, surely itshould be Jonathan Safran Foer’s original book receiving the blame for that.What I think the film is is a direct and earnest reaction to that horrible event,intended to simply view the event and its aftermath from the POV of a young boywho has lost his father and wants him back; in that sense, it works ratherwell, but it is nonetheless the case that our heartstrings are yanked on far toooften an occasion, which does eventually become slightly irritating.

The real heart of the movie is the father-son relationship, whichis moving and convincing, thanks in large part to Horn and Hanks' tremendous performances.Oskar and his father have an uncommonly touching relationship; in his sparetime, Oskar’s father prepares wide-scale scavenger hunts for Oskar to go on sothat Oskar may build up his social skills and mental abilities by meeting strangersand setting his mind to a challenging task. This helps to heighten the sense ofthe loss that Oskar experiences when his father is suddenly taken from him; italso helps to make the resulting sentimentality not feel false or forced but earnedand heartfelt, we as an audience having grown to care for the character ofOskar’s father.

“Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” is as easy to like asit is to dislike; it all depends on one’s tolerance of shameless sap. While it’soverly self-important and contains a few too many teary eyes and trembling lips,Daldry’s fourth feature film is nonetheless a moving and charming melodrama thatis handsomely directed, poignantly written and impressively acted. As apost-9/11 drama, it’s no “The 25^th Hour” or “United 93,” but it’s afine enough film and a successful tear-jerker.

7/10

The Muppets

2012-02-11T01:16:00.000Z

“Life’s a happy song,” sing a bright-eyed Jason Segel andhis Muppet brother Walter in the unashamedly joyous opening musical number ofDisney’s “The Muppets.” And indeed, “The Muppets” is a happy film, perpetuallyhappy in fact, and it doesn’t care who knows it. It’s bright, it’s colourful,it’s silly and it’s sweet, all in a way that calls to mind the ever-beloved“Muppets Show” that was transmitted onto TV screens all the way back in themid-‘70s. Here is a film so exuberantly fun and endearingly cheerful that tonitpick away at its occasional faults seems a wholly pointless task.

Directed by “The Flight of the Conchords” co-creator JamesBobin, “The Muppets” works essentially as a revamp of the Muppets brand, aswell as a comeback for Kermit and pals. Created of course by the late great JimHenson, the Muppets haven’t appeared on the big screen since 1999, the yearthat their sixth film, “Muppets from Space,” was released in theatres. Sincethen, they’ve done two television films – 2002’s “It’s a Very Merry MuppetsChristmas Movie” and 2005’s “The Muppets’ Wizard of Oz” – and sadly not muchelse of note.

This is reflected in the film itself; at the film’sbeginning, the Muppets are all washed-up and long-forgotten by the generalpublic. They’ve drifted far away from the spotlight in which they once shonebright, and have also drifted apart as a group, all having gone their separateways. In fact, there seem to be only two people in the whole wide world whostill remember and still adore the Muppets: brothers Gary (Jason Segel,“Forgetting Sarah Marshall,” in human form) and Walter (a Muppet voiced byPeter Linz) from Smalltown; question not how these two can be genetic brothers – itsomehow makes perfect sense within the context of the film.

Along with Gary’s long-time girlfriend Mary (the delightful,though underused Amy Adams, “Enchanted”), the two Muppet-worshiping brothers goon a vacation to Los Angeles for two reasons: one, to celebrate Gary and Mary’sten-year anniversary; and two, to take a tour round the grand old MuppetTheatre, which Walter in particular is over the moon about. However, once theyget to the theatre, which is now all dusty and derelict, Walter discoverssomething horrible: Tex Richman (a tremendously hammy Chris Cooper, “The Company Men”), a mean and nasty corporate businessman, wishes to purchase the theatre,knock it down and drill for oil that lies underneath.

Mortified, Walter goes to see his hero, Kermit the Frog(voiced by Steve Whitmire), at his mansion and explains the situation to him:that if Kermit doesn’t somehow raise $10 million, Richman will have the theatrecompletely destroyed. Kermit, Walter, Gary and Mary then hatch a plan togetherto raise the money: getting the old Muppet team back together again and performinga show – but will they be able to find all of the ex-Muppets and convince them todo the show? Oh who am I kidding, of course they do.

Yes, all of your favourite Muppet characters are here tohelp you raise your hands in the air and surrender to sweet, beautiful nostalgia;I won’t list them all (there are far too many to mention), but the obvious highlightsare the gloriously glamorous Miss Piggy (voiced by Eric Jacobson), dodgystand-up comic Fozzie Bear (also Jacobson), psychopathic drummer Animal(Jacobson again), droopy-nosed goof Gonzo (voiced by Dave Goelz) and everyone’sfavourite zinger-spouting critics, Statler (Whitmire) and Waldorf (Goelz).

They and their many Muppet co-stars are all wonderfullyMuppeteered by the incredibly talented voice actors, who wring both comedy andsentimentality out of the widely adored characters. Writers Segel and NicholasStoller clearly understand what makes these characters tick and what it is thatfans love about them, and at no point do they betray this for the sake of pointlessmodernisation; the Muppets have not been twisted and tarnished by modern-dayHollywood – they’re just as wild, crazy and boundlessly charming as they alwayshave been, free of snarkiness and full of good old lovability.

This is old-fashioned, song and dance, variety show Muppets;indeed, there’s a fair share of toe-tapping, head-nodding, memory-imprintingmusical numbers, as supervised by Bret McKenzie of “Flight of the Conchords”fame and performed by both the Muppets themselves and the human performers. Wehave the aforementioned opener, “Life’s a Happy Song,” the wryly funny andgenuinely poignant (and now Oscar-nominated) power ballad “Man or Muppet,” andalso a hilariously abrupt sing-along rap by Chris Cooper; that’d be fun to see beingperformed at the Oscar ceremony. We also have a whole boatload of cameos from afew familiar faces, the identities of which I would never dream of revealing;that of course would only spoil the pleasure of the many surprises held within.

“The Muppets” is a family film in the purest sense of theterm; it is a film for youngsters, for teenagers, for parents and forgrandparents. Regardless of your age, “The Muppets” will not fail to raise asmile, tickle a funny bone or warm the heart. It is gleefully anarchic,infinitely energetic, riotously nutty, enormously entertaining, magnificentlyself-referential and utterly riveting; it is a glorious comeback for a timelesscreation that will delight loyal fans and enthral newcomers. Simply put, it’sphenomenal. Do doo be-do-do…

9/10

Journey 2: The Mysterious Island

2012-02-08T23:13:00.000Z

Lizards are punched, pecs are flexed and bumblebees are mountedin Brad Peyton’s relentlessly goofy follow-up to “Journey to the Centre of theEarth,” the 2008 family adventure flick that helped kick-start the ongoing 3Dcraze (damn that film!). “Journey 2: The Mysterious Island” is much the same asits worldwide hit of a predecessor; it’s a family-friendly B-movie, it’spresented in three eye-prodding dimensions and it’s stuffed full of oversized,computer-animated creatures. What’s missing, aside from Brendan “FurryVengeance” Fraser, is an engaging narrative, heart-racing set-pieces and acompetently written script, although “Journey 1” could hardly preach aboutthese attributes.

Taking over the leading role abandoned by Fraser (perhaps he’sbusy filming “The Mummy IV: The Search for More Mummy”) is a head-shaven,muscle-bound Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, who here furthers the family-friendlyimage he displayed very well in “Race to Witch Mountain” and not so well in “TheTooth Fairy.” In “Journey 2,” Johnson plays Hank Parsons, the concerned step-fatherof Sean Anderson (Josh Hutcherson, reprising his role from the first film), to whomwe are reintroduced as he attempts to outrun the police on a motorbike.

He is caught, but no charges are pressed against him. As itturns out, Sean was attempting to break into a satellite research facility tostrengthen a signal broadcast he picked up at home. Together, Sean and Hankdecode the message, which reveals that the fictional islands portrayed in JulesVerne’s “The Mysterious Island,” Robert Louis Stevenson’s “Treasure Island” andJonathan Swift’s “Gulliver’s Travels” are in fact the same island, and thatthis island is real; it also leads them to discovering the exact coordinates ofthis mysterious island, which it turns out is right next to Palau.

So, step-father and step-son head off to Palau, where theyenquire about a guide; what they get is a dodgy helicopter pilot named Gabato(Luis Guzman, “Arthur”) and Gabato’s daughter, Kailani (Vanessa Hudgens, “SuckerPunch”), with whom Sean immediately falls in love. The foursome head off in thehelicopter towards the island’s coordinates and encounter a tornado, into whichthey are all sucked and wind up on the shore of – gasp – a mysterious island!

This island, a mostly tropical one, is a technical marveland a feast for the eyes. It’s vibrantly rendered, epic in scale and would provideplenty of excitement for Indiana Jones, let alone the five protagonists of “Journey2.” Among other things, the island contains giant lizards, giant ants, giantmillipedes, tiny elephants, treacherous mountains and a smoking volcano. Thetrouble is, it becomes a bit samey after a while, which is problematic, giventhat the story can’t rely on the generally uninteresting characters to sustainone’s attention, instead having to constantly rely on ginormous creaturescrawling and gliding their way across the screen; by the time you get to the giantspiders, you’ll be a little too indifferent to roll your eyes.

It is on the island that Sean finds his long lostgrandfather, Alexander Anderson (Sir Michael Caine, if you can believe it), anenthusiastic adventurer. It was Alexander who sent the broadcast, a distresssignal, and it turns out a signal can only be sent out from the island once afortnight, so the five will have to stay put until then. They also discoverthat every 140 years or so the island is entirely immersed underwater, and itseems the next big flood is fast approaching.

I believe “Journey 2” was written with a love and admirationfor the works of Jules Verne, author of both “A Journey to the Centre of theEarth” and indeed “The Mysterious Island.” Unfortunately, the film’s two writers,cousins Brian and Mark Gunn, are the guys who previously gave us “Cats and Dogs:The Revenge of Kitty Galore,” so any respect the two have for Verne isgenerally clouded over by an air of gormless stupidity. Indeed, their script isa classic case of dumbed-down source material, ending up as a sloppily written clashbetween CGI-laden adventurism and painstakingly unfunny banter shared betweenthe characters. And the wittiest the film gets is the pun in the title; it’s “journey2 (to) the mysterious island,” geddit?

Your children will enjoy “Journey 2,” of this I have nodoubt. You may also find yourself enjoying the film, but I think this is significantlyless likely. The film is pure nonsense from start to finish; it’s moderatelyamusing and perfectly harmless nonsense, but nonsense nonetheless. If you likethat sort of thing, go for it. If not, avoid it like you would a giant buzzingbumblebee being ridden by Sir Michael Caine; just out of interest, would theQueen take away a knighthood for bumblebee-riding or hand one out for it?

5/10

Man on a Ledge

2012-02-06T23:40:00.000Z

The premise of “Man on a Ledge” naturally calls for a constant assortmentof nausea-inducing visuals; I trust you can decipher the reason why just byreading the film’s brilliantly blunt title. The film takes a man, takes a ledgeand places the man on top of the ledge; it’s as simple a concept as that one froma few years back that placed some snakes on a plane – the film’s name escapesme. At many points throughout “Man on a Ledge,” we look down from the ledge andover the man’s feet to peer at the street 21 stories below, director Asger Lethplayfully poking away at the audience’s tolerance for eye-crossingly big heights.As I’m sure you can imagine, this creates some hair-raising suspense and churnsthe stomach quite a bit, although the level of this nail-biting intensity issadly not high enough to rescue the film from its aura of drabness.

I suppose this is only heightened by the recent release of “Mission:Impossible – Ghost Protocol,” an action sequel in which director Brad Bird tookTom Cruise, handed him some high-tech sticking gloves and dangled him off the100^th-plus storey of the Burj Khalifa, aka the tallest building onplanet Earth. That was a tremendously dizzying sequence, a result of excellentcraftsmanship from Mr Bird; unfortunately for Leth, his film can merely wobblein comparison with “MI4”’s vertigo-provoking sequences and consequently findsitself hurtling down towards the ground, arms and legs violently flailing, its teenytiny brain quickly splattered all across the pavement below; I apologise forthe graphic image, but it seemed necessary.

But Tom Cruise clinging onto the side of a national landmarkis not the only hurdle “Man on a Ledge” clumsily trips over; I shall get tothose later. First, though, I want to tell you why this man is on this ledge.To begin with, we don’t know why; we simply watch an American man, played by amullet-sporting Sam Worthington (“Avatar”), going up to a room on the top floorof a Manhattan hotel. He orders room service, fails to eat the food, opens thewindow, takes a deep breath and climbs his way out to the ledge outside. Our firstthought is that he is going to commit suicide; well, it would be, had the film’strailer not given away 90% of the film’s content.

It soon transpires that the man is a fugitive ex-cop namedNick Cassidy. Nick has recently escaped from prison; his charge was the theftof a $40 million diamond stolen from corrupt businessman David Englander (EdHarris, “The Way Back”), for which Nick was going to serve 25 years. However,Nick stubbornly claims that he is innocent and that Englander set him up; hismethod of proving this is apparently to stand on a ledge, cause a media stormand attract the attention of every citizen in New York – but that’s only halfthe plan; with all eyes on Nick, there are no eyes on the building across thestreet, where the diamond Englander reported stolen and missing is sitting inEnglander’s vault, ready to be found by Nick’s brother, Joey (Jamie Bell, “TheAdventures of Tintin”), and Joey’s sexy girlfriend, Angie (Genesis Rodriguez, “Casade Mi Padre”).

Aside from the cheering crowd that gathers on the streetbelow with sadistic watchfulness, Nick’s actions are an irritant for many. For example,there is negotiator Lydia Mercer (Elizabeth Banks, “The Next Three Days”), whomNick specifically asks to come talk to him on the ledge. Lydia is currently onleave following an incident in which a depressed cop she tried to coax out ofjumping off the Brooklyn Bridge, well, jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge. There’salso Englander, a cardboard cut-out of a villain, played with shark-eyed intensityby an oddly committed Harris. While at first uninterested in hearing about thejumper on the building across the street, Englander’s ears suddenly prick up whenhe discovers that the jumper is the man he recently had sent to prison for aquarter of a century.

The film has a decent cast, and I’m including the usuallycharmless Worthington in that mix; surprisingly, he makes for a rather goodleading man here, albeit occasionally stumbling back into the characteristic woodennesshe displayed in “Clash of the Titans” and “Avatar.” Banks is also on fine form,as are Harris and Bell, who gets to perform some high-tech “Mission: Impossible”-esquestunts throughout the film; oh look, I’ve somehow managed to circle back to the“Mission: Impossible” franchise. Unfortunately, thanks to a dodgy, formulaicscript, none of them have much to do outside of standing around and reading clunkydialogue; writer Pablo Fenjves seems to think in terms of plot points as opposedto character development and character distinction. As such, the cast is wastedand can do very little to engage the audience into the narrative, leaving usfeeling indifferent about the advancement and outcome of the story; also, onewould have to be blind, deaf and dumb to wrongly predict any of the increasingly hackneyedplot points.

I believe many will gain some enjoyment out of “Man on aLedge;” it is, after all, slickly directed popcorn fluff that provides moderatethrills and a twisty turny plot. But I would be lying if I were to say Ienjoyed it to the point where I liked it; I found myself rolling my eyes andshaking my head on far too often an occasion for me to call it a good movie. Isee it as a slightly less gripping “Phone Booth,” a Joel Schumacher thrillerfrom 2002; that film also contained a sadistic crowd of bystanders watching thetroubled hero in eager excitement – here, I found the crowd much more difficultto empathise with.

5/10

Martha Marcy May Marlene

2012-02-05T01:06:00.000Z

The curiously titled “Martha Marcy May Marlene” is an independent film and isshot like a typical independent film. It is also a horror film, although it isnot shot like a horror film. It is not a horror in the typically terrifying orimmediately noticeable sense; you will find no axe-wielding maniacs or vengefulspectres here. But what you will find is an overwhelming feeling of dread and anacute sense of paranoia, both of which surround the film and suffocate theviewer; I’d call the film a psychological thriller had it tried to bethrilling, but it did not, so it is a horror.

The film stars in its leading role the undiscoveredElizabeth Olsen, aka the younger sister of the (in)famous Olsen twins. This is the22-year-old’s acting debut, which is not the slightest bit evident at any pointin the film. Olsen performs like an experienced professional of the actingbusiness, offering a dramatic performance that is a raw, emotional andcaptivating beginning to a potentially luxurious career; one can only wonderwhy Olsen’s older sisters rose to bright and shining fame instead of their tremendouslytalented little sister.

Olsen plays Martha, a young woman who we watch flee from a smallcommunity that resides in a farmhouse by the woods in New York state. Marthahas an older sister, Lucy (Kristen Wiig lookalike Sarah Paulson, “New Year’sEve”). Lucy hasn’t heard a peep from Martha in two years, so it’s quite thesurprise when Martha calls her out of the blue one day, sounding upset, but notwilling to admit it. Lucy picks her up from outside a diner and takes her toher lakeside home. Martha claims that she has just broken up with a boy wholied to her; we know this to be false.

Lucy has a husband, English architect Ted (Hugh Dancy, “Adam”).Lucy and Ted allow Martha to stay in their home for a while, until Martha isready to get a job and get her own place somewhere. Martha is flattered, but soonbecomes an irritant for her big sister and brother-in-law, not because shestays too long, but because of her strange invasiveness and emotionalinstability. Martha also seems to be suffering from mass paranoia, resulting insome uncomfortable situations, such as when Martha attacks a stranger in themiddle of a house party.

At many points throughout the film, we flashback to Martha’spast, specifically to the time she spent with the community we watch her fleein the film’s opening moments. It’s never explicitly stated at any point who thesegroup of people are or what exactly it is they do, but common sense tells usthey’re some sort of cult, and an abusive and manipulative one. Martha wasrecruited by them, stayed with them, lived by their ways, eventually had enoughof them and bolted without warning.

This cult is led by a man named Patrick, played by JohnHawkes. Patrick is charismatic, seductive and skilled in the art of persuasion,which aids in the commanding power he has over his loyal followers. He ismanipulative and possibly insane. Whether or not he truly believes in thelessons he teaches we don’t know, but his followers certainly listen to and areswayed by every word he says. He is the puppeteer and they are his poor,helpless puppets; it seems Martha smartly cut her strings while Patrick wasn’twatching.

Hawkes recently rose to fame for his menacing supportingperformance in Debra Granik’s 2010 drama “Winter’s Bone.” Here, Hawkes isequally as intimidating, creeping across the screen with a quiet, understated menace.At no point in the film does Hawkes’ character become angry or yell, yet hispresence is an exceptionally scary one; it’s the subtleties in Hawkes’ strangelycharming performance that prove the most threatening and the most enthralling;it’s a villainous role that is not overacted but performed with convincingrealism.

In the present day, Martha is haunted by her memories of thecult. She has nightmares about them, daydreams with terror about them and seesits members wherever she goes. This is where the horror elements creep theirway in, although very little of the film is presented in a typical horrorfashion. Martha is convinced that the cult is still watching her and that theyare coming for her; as such, much of the film makes for supremely intenseviewing as we too wonder whether or not the cult is coming to hunt Martha down.

For his feature film debut, writer-director Sean Durkin hasmade a film that is hypnotic, disturbing and deeply penetrating. It isbeautifully photographed by cinematographer Jody Lee Lipes, effectively actedby Olsen, Hawkes, Paulson and Dancy, and more unsettling and spine-chillingthan most horror films produced today. One hopes Olsen will make good use ofher incredible talents and not tumble into the abyss as her admittedly very rich sisters have done;she certainly has the skill to achieve the same level of fame and fortune enjoyedby those devilish twins and watched presumably in understandable envy by theOlsen of “Martha Marcy.”

9/10

Carnage

2012-02-04T00:50:00.001Z

The fact that “Carnage” is based on a stage play is veryevident in the way in which the film is presented to its audience; if it weren’talready based on a play, I’m sure I’d be recommending that a stage productionbe based on the film. The play in question here is the Olivier Award-winning blackcomedy “God of Carnage” by French playwright Yasmine Reza. I’m afraid I haven’tseen any of the play’s many productions, but if the play contains as much witand character as the film it’s spawned then I can certainly see why it and Rezahave enjoyed such a plethora of critical and commercial success since the play’sdebut in 2006.

The film is directed and co-written (the other writer beingReza) by Roman Polanski, a supremely talented filmmaker. In its four leadingroles are four very talented A-listers, each of whom have been bestowed at somepoint in their career with either an Oscar nomination or an Oscar win. Theseare Jodie Foster (“The Beaver”), John C. Reilly (“Cyrus”), Christoph Waltz (“TheGreen Hornet”) and Kate Winslet (“The Reader”).

Foster and Reilly play Penelope and Michael Longstreet, a marriedcouple whose young son has had two of his teeth knocked out by a schoolmatewith a stick during a recent confrontation in a park. Waltz and Winslet playAlan and Nancy Cowan, the parents of the boy who threw the stick. Alan andNancy have come over to the Longstreet’s Brooklyn apartment to settle what isto be done with the two boys. Penelope and Michael wish for Alan and Nancy’sson to meet with their son and apologise for what he has done; Alan and Nancyagree, sort of.

So, Alan and Nancy prepare to leave, they head towards thedoor, they walk out to the hallway, and within seconds they’re back in theapartment, sitting on the Longstreet couch, eating from a bowl of freshly madecobbler. This reoccurs time and time again, until the couple find themselves practicallyincapable of leaving the confines of Penelope and Michael’s luscious apartment.This is a result of, among other things, politeness, good manners, arguments, disagreements,general conversation and projectile vomiting.

Lasting a short but sweet length of 76 minutes, “Carnage” is shotpretty much in real-time. It’s 98% confined to the setting of Penelope and Michael’sspacious apartment, the other 2% consisting of the hallway outside theapartment and the opening and closing titles, which take place in a park. Theapartment is a splendid and comfortable-looking home, and yet after a while itbegins to turn oddly claustrophobic. Sure, it’s not quite as claustrophobic asthe six-feet-under setting of Rodrigo Cortés’ “Buried,” but as it turns out, beingconfined to pretty much the same room for well over an hour can prove rathersuffocating.

The film is an acting tour-de-force, an inevitably with sucha prestigious cast. I wish I could name the actor who shines the most in theirrole, but alas, I cannot; none of the four stars stand out from the rest, nor doany of them fall behind. They each have intriguing characters to play, none ofwhich we are specifically told to root for. Foster is a loving mother communicatingwith frequently unsubtle and occasionally unnecessary passive aggression.Reilly is a man trying to keep everything on the positive side, and ultimatelyfailing miserably. Winslet is a seemingly gracious woman unsure if her sonreally is in the wrong. And Waltz is a work-obsessed attorney forever yellinginto his cell phone and apparently indifferent to the situation at hand,although he nonetheless stays put.

It’s highly enjoyable watching these four actors and their diversecharacters interacting with one another, even if the reasons for them stayingin the same room together become somewhat far-fetched after a while. It’s also devilishlyamusing watching their pearly-toothed politeness slowly but surely descend intoimmature bickering, thunderous yelling and foul-mouthed drunkenness. Voices areraised, scotch is gulped, tears are shed, fists are swung and priceless artbooks are vomited upon; perhaps “carnage” is an overstatement, but it most certainly is not civil.

Whether or not Reza’s play necessarily needed a big-screenadaptation is not for me to say; either way, it’s made for a splendid film thatis wonderfully entertaining, smoothly directed, written with uncommon wit andintelligence and is superbly acted. While it may prove to not be particularlymemorable, it’s joyously riveting and morbidly fun while it lasts.

8/10

Chronicle

2012-02-02T01:47:00.000Z

Josh Trank’s “Chronicle” further intensifies the stigma ofbeing a creepy loner, almost as much as Alfred Hitchcock’s “Psycho” and MichaelPowell’s “Peeping Tom” did all the way back in 1960. The only difference hereis that the creepy loner in “Chronicle” is not a psychotic serial killer, butinstead a teenage boy who is bullied by schoolmates and regularly beaten by hisown father – the film shows how a boy such as this would deal with his personalproblems if given superhuman abilities beyond our understanding; as it turnsout, he’d use them very much to his advantage and very much to ourdisadvantage.

This boy is Andrew Detmer (Dane DeHaan), a high school kid livingwith his father (Michael Kelly, “The Adjustment Bureau”), a drunken, abusiveex-fireman who now lives off insurance money following an injury on the job. Andrew’smother is terminally ill and spends her days and nights coughing away in bedand feeding off expensive medication. Andrew has one friend, his cousin Matt(Alex Russell), who drives Andrew to school and doesn’t particularly like him,although he is mostly nice to him.

One night, during a rave party, Andrew, Matt and popularjock Steve (Michael B. Jordan, “Red Tails”) discover a small hole in the groundthat leads to an underground tunnel. While exploring the inside of this dark andmysterious tunnel, they find a strange glowing object that they caress and arehypnotised by. Next thing they know, Andrew, Matt and Steve are suddenly granted withsuperpowers; they can move objects with their minds, make themselvesimpenetrable and also have the ability to fly.

Of course, they at first test their powers, develop them,learn how to properly use them and are soon using them to fool around and playpranks (moving parked cars from one parking spot to another, making a littlegirl forever terrified of teddy bears, etc.). The trio eventually decidetogether that they must not tell anyone about their newly discovered powers noruse them in public or on another human being; unsurprisingly, it doesn’t takevery long for them to break these rules, especially for Andrew.

“Chronicle” is filmed in the found-footage format, which I’mnot going to explain again; by this point, you really should know what afound-footage film is. It’s the first superhero flick to be filmed in the formatand I suspect it will not be the last. The film is shot mostly from Andrew’sperspective; as it’s established in the opening scene, Andrew has recentlytaken up filming (or “chronicling”) his surroundings with a camera, and the footagehe shoots serves as our eyesight for much of the film.

This format is used very well in the film; it doesn’t feelforced or unnecessary, instead feeling very natural and at times unnoticeable.This is a result of much creativity on the part of first-time director JoshTrank and first-time screenwriter Max Landis; for example, Andrew films much ofhis footage while making the camera levitate in the air and revolve around himand the other characters, almost as if the film is being shot in “normal” mode.Our eyesight is also taken from the perspective of other cameras at some pointsin the film, in particular during the explosive third act, during which we jumpbetween police cameras and CCTV footage, all done with smoothness and clarity. Trankand Landis have taken this increasingly tedious format, picked it apart andhave breathed new life into its wheezy lungs, which is a lot more than I cansay for recent found-footage clunkers “Apollo 18” and “The Devil Inside.”

We have in Andrew a very interesting character, and the filmhandles him with care and attention. Andrew is a character who goes on a fully believableand, more importantly, convincing emotional journey throughout the film. He isa boy who is beaten, bullied and emotionally unstable, and is all of a sudden grantedthe powers of a god; how exactly he will use these powers to presumably strikeback is intriguing and ultimately very compelling – not to give too much away,but if you’ve seen “Carrie,” you should have a general idea of how this allpans out.

“Chronicle” works as a high-school drama, as ascience-fiction actioner and as a dark and intimate character study. It’sa carefully crafted blockbuster spectacle and a smartly constructed found-footage flick.It’s intelligent, cool, gripping, well-acted, well-directed, sometimes funny, sometimesexhilarating and always entertaining. It’s a refreshing superhero origin story,and also a wonderful morality tale, the moral being to never, ever, under anycircumstances, allow a creepy loner to gain superpowers.

8/10

Shame

2012-01-30T17:00:00.000Z

“Shame” is not the kind of film you would take your mother with you to see, not unless you’re in dire need of some crippling awkwardness and a hard smack around the ear. “Shame” is a film filled with sex, the physical act presented sometimes audibly, sometimes visually, sometimes both, sometimes neither. But “Shame” is not a sexy film; it is in fact an uncomfortable film to sit through, and deliberately so. It is also haunting, which is also deliberate. It is a film that will linger in your mind long after the end credits roll, long after you leave the theatre and long after you get back home; whether or not you want it to linger in your mind matters not – “Shame” is going to stay with you.

The film is co-written and directed by Steve McQueen (no, not that one). It is McQueen’s second feature film, his first being the magnificent Bobbie Sands biopic “Hunger” from 2008. That film starred Michael Fassbender, an Irish-German actor who has since become something of a household name. It is in “Shame” that the actor and filmmaker reunite, and the result is just as raw, visceral and captivating as it was back in ’08.

In “Shame,” Fassbender plays Brandon, a handsome thirty-something New Yorker with a good-paying office job, decent fashion sense and a fancy high-rise apartment in Manhattan. He is also a sex addict, although it seems he is the only person in his life who is even slightly aware of this. Brandon’s daily life revolves almost entirely around sex; when he’s at work, he’s downloading porn on his office computer and masturbating in the men’s room; when he’s on the street or in a bar, he’s eying women up, asking them out and slipping his hand down their pants; when he’s at home, he’s either having sex, downloading porn or masturbating in the shower.

Like most sex addicts, or addicts in general, Brandon is deeply unhappy with his life; he does not enjoy giving into his addictions, but he must, lest he lose his mind. In one early scene, Brandon gazes longingly and lustily at a woman sitting opposite him on the subway train; the woman gazes back, apparently flattered, but the situation soon becomes uncomfortable for her, and she exits the train, promptly followed by Brandon, who loses her in the crowd. This is the searching. In another scene, we are shown a close-up of Brandon’s face as he is having an orgasm; his facial expression is at first one of physical pleasure, but quickly transforms into an expression of disgust and self-loathing. This is the result.

One night, Brandon comes home to discover a woman in his shower. This woman is Sissy (Carey Mulligan, “Drive”), whom we soon discover is Brandon’s sister, an aspiring singer. Sissy wishes to stay for a few nights, much to Brandon’s annoyance; however, he reluctantly agrees to let her stay out of some surviving remnant of brotherly love. Naturally, Sissy’s presence disrupts Brandon’s private life and daily routine, to which he wants no witnesses. Sissy is fragile, dependant, intrusive and very needy; upon first glance, she is the complete opposite of the emotionally detached Brandon. It soon transpires, though, that Sissy is just as screwed up as her big brother, if not more so.

“Shame” is a film that tells us everything while telling us nothing. Very little about the film is spelled out to its audience; for example, it is never explicitly stated at any point in the film that Brandon is a sex addict, nor is it even commented on – we just watch him have sex, masturbate, stare at girls, flirt with girls, watch porn, have cybersex and hand wads of cash to prostitutes. We are little more than witnesses (or voyeurs, I suppose) to these abnormally frequent acts and are allowed to come to our own conclusions on the man who commits them; it is also of note that the film is rather non-judgemental of Brandon and the things he does, allowing our opinion to sway whichever way we wish it to.

The same goes for Brandon’s past, and indeed Sissy’s past. Again, there is nothing explicitly stated about what precisely shaped them into the people they are today, be it a childhood trauma or whatever else, but there are curious hints of it. “We’re not bad people,” says Sissy in a teary message left on Brandon’s voicemail. “We just come from a bad place.” It’s clear something unpleasant happened between these two siblings at a young age, but specific details go unmentioned, and the film is all the more powerful for it – some things in cinema are better left unsaid and unexplored, lest the film spoil the intriguing ambiguity.

Fassbender, a supremely talented actor, gives what is probably the best performance of his career as Brandon. His performance here is intimate, endearing, bold and brave; I struggle to imagine any other actor handling the role as well as Fassbender has done here. His character is a man who is unapologetic for what he is but at the same time feels intense shame when he does what he does, hence the title. He is a man whose life is eternally stuck in a loop, Brandon forever soullessly yearning to quench his unwanted desires. We are allowed to feel sympathy for Brandon’s condition and the misery of a life he leads, but at no point does the film beg for our sorrow, nor does Fassbender. As a man suffering from a scandalous addiction, Brandon is an undoubtedly complex character, and Fassbender handles these complexities with apparent ease; it’s of little wonder that the actor has received such widespread acclaim and attention for his performance.

Mulligan too gives a powerhouse performance as Sissy, a character just as fascinating as Brandon. Sissy is a woman forever trapped in her childhood years; she is incapable of settling down somewhere, instead moving from city to city, perhaps out of boredom, perhaps out of something else. She’s more outspoken and playful than Brandon, but is hiding a damaged soul, the damage of which can be unmasked by the simple rolling up of her sleeves, revealing several cut marks lining the insides of her arms. Mulligan proved herself to be a very fine actress in 2009’s “An Education” and last year’s “Drive;” here, she further cements this status, giving a supporting performance that is as effective and compelling as any other I’ve seen in some time.

McQueen is tremendously talented in the art of translating thought onto the screen; of course, the acting talents of Fassbender and Mulligan are a good deal of help in accomplishing this. In one scene, for example, a frustrated Brandon angrily paces back and forth in his apartment as he is forced to listen to the sounds of Sissy having sex with his douchebag of a boss in the next room. In reaction, Brandon marches to his wardrobe, grabs a tracksuit, goes to the street below and, in a sequence captured in a single, unbroken take, jogs his way down at least three whole blocks. There is no dialogue, no explanation why and no warning that it is going to happen, and yet we fully understand why Brandon is doing this and what is going through his mind as he pants away and pumps his arms and legs up and down the streets of Manhattan. It’s a breathtaking sequence orchestrated with startling beauty and commanding power by McQueen, much like the rest of this daring film.

To sum up “Shame” in one word, I’d say it’s extraordinary; I doubt many will walk out of the film feeling that it is not extraordinary in some way or another. “Shame” is an extraordinary piece of acting. It is an extraordinary piece of directing. It is an extraordinary piece of writing. It is an extraordinary piece of editing. It is an extraordinary exploration of sexuality. It is an extraordinary exploration of addiction. It is an extraordinary study of a complex man. It is an extraordinary portrayal of a life less ordinary. It is an extraordinary portrayal of a man who wants to stop himself. And it is an extraordinary portrayal of a man who can’t stop himself. It is extraordinary in so many ways, and in ways that will surely prove difficult to ever forget.

10/10

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

2012-01-28T02:26:00.002Z

It is with expected style and finesse that director DavidFincher has both remade Niels Arden Oplev’s “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”and adapted Stieg Larsson’s bestselling Swedish novel, which was originallybranded in Sweden with the less marketable title of “Men Who Hate Women,” ontothe big screen. Fincher, along with talented screenwriter Steven Zaillian(“Moneyball”), has succeeded in improving upon Oplev’s 2009 film version, which I mustsay I liked very much. Together, Fincher and Zaillian have also taken thenovel’s atypical whodunit narrative and have spun it into a significantly morecinematic and intriguing experience than what Oplev achieved with his adaptation;they’ve taken what is essentially an unusually violent episode of “MidsomerMurders” and have turned it into something that is as relentlessly gripping andhypnotic as Fincher’s two previous whodunit drama-thrillers, 1995’s “Se7en” and2007’s “Zodiac.”

Fincher’s adaptation almost immediately sets itself apartfrom Oplev’s; the opening titles, arriving a minute into the film, are likethat of a Bond film, albeit much more morbid in mindset. Set to Trent Reznorand Atticus Ross’ grungy reworking of Led Zeppelin’s “Immigrant Song,” withvocals by Karen O, it depicts several CG-rendered objects and figures, includingelectrical wires, a bald eagle and also star Rooney Mara (“The Social Network”),as they are drowned from head to toe in tattoo ink. They twist and turn, riseand fall, and embrace one another until Mara has her ink-splattered faceviolently bashed to bits by the inky knuckles of a man’s fist. It’s anuncommonly ambitious, unexpectedly disturbing and visually orgasmic hallucinogenic nightmare that certainly would have seemed stupendously out-of-place in Oplev’s ratherrestrained film; here, it fits perfectly, and faultlessly sets the tone forwhat is to transpire in this tremendous story.

Following this, we meet our two protagonists. Our first isMikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig, “Cowboys and Aliens”), an investigativejournalist who is going through some high-profile legal trouble in Sweden. Wefirst meet Mikael just as he has been convicted of libel against undoubtedlycorrupt businessman Hans-Erik Wennerström, meaning he must pay a hefty sum ofmoney to the crooked git. Soon after his conviction, Mikael is contacted byHenrik Vanger (“Beginners”), an elderly millionaire who has a business offerfor Mikael. Intrigued, Mikael travels to Henrik’s estate and discovers thatHenrik wants him to solve a 40-year-old mystery: the disappearance and possiblemurder of Henrik’s beloved niece, Harriet.

Our second protagonist is Lisbeth Salander (Mara), acharacter who has become something of a phenomenon of modern literature.Lisbeth is what you might describe as an odd creature. Forever dressed as across between a punk rock chick and a gloomy goth, Lisbeth has led an exceptionallytough life and is, on the surface, a cold-hearted loner who cares not foranything or anyone. She is isolated, anti-social and emotionally tortured, yet stillunflinchingly strong and uncommonly intelligent.

A freelance computer hacker, Lisbeth is secretly documentingMikael’s every move at the request of Henrik’s people, who simply want abackground check on the man. Soon enough, Mikael discovers Lisbeth’s actionsand, not wishing to make the same mistake he did with Wennerström, requests herresearch expertise to help in the investigation; at first disinterested,Lisbeth becomes attracted to the offer once she discovers she will be helping inthe tracking down of a “killer of women.”

The mystery is as such: 40 years ago, on the islandinhabited solely by Henrik’s devious family, young Harriet vanished without atrace and was never seen again. The case has never been solved, but Henrik is100% confident that she was murdered, and that the murderer is someone in hisfamily, or, as Henrik describes them, “The most detestable collection of peoplethat you will ever meet.” In addition, ever since Harriet’s unexplained disappearance,Henrik has been mailed framed flowers (the birthday gift he received from Harrietever year before she vanished) on each of his birthdays; he believes themurderer has been cruelly taunting him for four whole decades with these “gifts,”and he now wants to finally find out who this person is.

It’s a fascinating mystery, but it’s one we’ve seen before.As such, it’s a testament to how well constructed Fincher’s redo is that thiscentral mystery actually manages to captivate on a higher level here than itdid in Oplev’s original adaptation. This time around, we know precisely who thekiller is, we know their motivations, we know how the investigation pans outand we know the end result in full, and yet the mystery, against all odds, remainsfully engrossing and exciting from start to finish, thanks largely to the irresistiblyabsorbing and mesmerising ambience that surrounds the film.

This is a result, in part, of the chilling, focused andatmospheric direction from Fincher, the smartly written screenplay by Zaillian,the crisp editing by Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall, the beautifully orchestrated cinematography by Jeff Cronenweth, and the uncompromisingly haunting musicalscore composed by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. Together, these elementscreate an all-consuming aura that pulls us in right from the aforementioned openingtitles and refuses to let go until the end credits creep their way onto thescreen after over 150 minutes of unyielding intensity.

We also have Craig and Mara, who both offer tremendous leadingperformances, although the focus is inevitably more centred on Mara. Thisup-and-coming American actress (pulling off a damn good Swedish accent) has aNoomi Rapace-shaped shadow looming over her for much of the time she ison-screen, and yet Mara somehow manages to overcome this, perhaps evenequalling Rapace’s breathtaking performance in the Swedish adaptation. Mara’sperformance here is as fascinating and beguiling as Rapace ever was, taking thecharacter of Lisbeth, a damaged soul with a troubled past, and turning her intoher own character, one that she fully commits to and immerses herself in; for almostevery frame containing the sight of Mara, you cannot take your eyes off her.

Fincher’s “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” is a refreshingpiece of mainstream cinema. It is a film made with incredible passion, skilland intelligence, although what else can you expect from David Fincher? It isboth a splendid remake and a marvellous adaptation of Larsson’s original novel.It is movie-making at its most absorbing and hypnotic, and further cementsFincher’s reputation as one of the most gifted filmmakers working in Hollywood.

10/10

Haywire

2012-01-23T23:42:00.000Z

With “Haywire,” director Steven Soderbergh achieves anuncommon achievement: making a girls-kicking-ass movie that itself kicks ass.Over the past few years, we’ve seen many failed attempts at this; we’ve had filmssuch as “Tomb Raider,” “Aeon Flux,” “Ultraviolet,” “Resident Evil,” “Elektra,”“Salt” and, most recently, “Colombiana,” all of which didn’t so much kick assas they did suck it. Only two recent examples spring to mind that rose abovethis menstrual stream of crap; these are Quentin Tarantino’s “Kill Bill” from 2003 andJoe Wright’s “Hanna” from 2011; “Haywire” is set to join them.

In the leading role of this girls-kicking-assaction-thriller is retired mixed martial arts fighter Gina Carano, who someAmericans may recognise as Crush from “American Gladiators.” This is Carano’sfirst acting role, a fact which admittedly rears its head on some occasionsthroughout “Haywire.” Nevertheless, Carano’s job here is all about the actionand little about the acting; it is her job to fight good, and fight good shemost certainly does.

Carano stars as Mallory Kane, a no-nonsense Americansuperspy who handles jobs that often veer towards the murderous side of things.Mallory is a professional fighter, shooter, killer and rooftop-jumper. Get onher bad side, expect a few broken bones. Get on her good side, still expect afew broken bones.

In the opening scene, Mallory enters a small café in themiddle of nowhere. There, she meets with ex-partner Aaron (Channing Tatum, “TheEagle”) and unexpectedly engages in a bloody battle with the buff potato-face.Soon enough, Mallory’s driving a car with its owner, stranger Scott (MichaelAngarano, “Red State”), and telling him her story.

Through flashbacks, it is revealed that Mallory wasdouble-crossed during a mission in Dublin that went a bit awry. Now a fugitive,Mallory is forced to go on the run from the law and from her own organisation.She’s gunning for revenge. But who betrayed her? Was it Aaron, was it theshadowy Rodrigo (Antonio Banderas, “Puss in Boots”), or was it ex-boss Kenneth(Ewan McGregor, “Perfect Sense”)?

For the most part, “Haywire” relies on its action, which isnot a bad thing; it is an action movie, after all. The action is frequent,although not in a non-stop, “The Adventures of Tintin” kind of way. There’s aton of action to be thrilled by, and thrilled by it we most certainly are. Scenesnot featuring violent physical conflicts are rare, which is a good thingbecause “Haywire” is at its very best when it’s in combat mode.

The action is fast and lean. Soderbegh films and edits itwith refreshing clarity. The action relies much on the fighting skills ofCarano, who applies her mixed martial arts skills wherever applicable. She’sclearly endlessly talented in the area; she pummels guys in the gut, boots themin the face and bounces off walls with impressive ease; it’s mesmerising towatch, and also refreshing to witness – far too often is movie action relianton special effects and wirework; good old-fashioned stunts will always be king.

Carano does a good job in the leading role, and not just onthe ass-kicking front. She has a fairly powerful on-screen presence andsucceeds in constructing a believable character out of a superspy action-chick.Sure, some of her line delivery is a bit off and can be rather wooden onoccasion, but in terms of becoming and performing this character she is mostlysuccessful. I predict a luxurious future for Carano in the movies, most likelyin the action genre.

There’s also a superb supporting cast starring alongsideCarano. As mentioned earlier, we have Ewan McGregor, Antonio Banderas andChanning Tatum (this is one of his better roles) lending their talents. We alsohave Michael Douglas (“Wall Street”) starring as a high-up official ofMallory’s organisation and Michael Fassbender (“Shame”) starring as a spy whoworks alongside Mallory in the ill-fated Dublin mission. It’s long been saidthat Fassbender will one day be James Bond; here, he’s the next best thing: aBond girl.

This is Soderbergh’s 25^th feature film. As he’sproven time and time again, he’s a wonderful director of mainstream cinema.With “Haywire,” he’s proven this again: he’s made a splendid genre flick thatserves as a hopefully successful star vehicle for Carano. It’s a fun, albeitforgettable ride that provides impressive, bone-crunching action that astoundsand enthrals; many action directors should take note.

7/10

Underworld: Awakening

2012-01-22T01:09:00.000Z

The very best thing I can say about “Underworld: Awakening”is that it’s visually luxurious. Like its three moody predecessors, it’s darkand gothic, taking place mostly at night time (for logical reasons). Itfeatures many action sequences, all stylised to high heaven, a la “The Matrix,”and all decidedly cool and awesome. It also maintains the metallic blue tintthat director Len Wiseman heavily decorated the first film with. Now, that’sall well and good, but the problem is this: “Awakening” is the fourthinstalment in the “Underworld” franchise, meaning we’ve seen all this threetimes before – surely by now this franchise should really be thinking aboutrelying on something outside of stylish visuals, and by that I don’t mean slapping3D onto the damn thing.

“Awakening” sees Kate Beckinsale returning as Selene, thepale-faced vampire warrior clad in a tight leather catsuit and armed withsilver-plated bullets and silver spinning thingies. If you’ve been followingthe horror-action series, you’ll know that the third instalment, prequel “Riseof the Lycans,” did not star Beckinsale or her character (although it did oddlystar a Beckinsale lookalike as another character). This one, however, continuesSelene’s story from the first two films, taking place twelve years after thefirst sequel, “Evolution.”

At the film’s beginning, we are shown that the humanpopulation is now very much aware of the existence of vampires and Lycans (which are werewolves, basically). Both are fiercely hunted by the government, leading to thesupposed extinction of the Lycan race. Both species, however, have left quite ascar on human society, with many now dead after attacks resulting from the species’ widespreaddiscovery.

Selene and her vampire-Lycan hybrid lover, Michael, have beencaptured by the humans. After twelve years of being trapped in a state of cryogenic suspension,Selene finally breaks out of her frozen prison and, in a sequence resembling ascene from last year’s “Resident Evil: Afterlife,” effortlessly breaks out ofthe high-security research facility in which she has been imprisoned. That samenight, there is another break-out from the same facility, this one by a 12-year-oldgirl, Eve (India Eisley, “The Secret Life of the American Teenager”), whomSelene discovers is not only a vampire-Lycan hybrid, but is also her very owndaughter.

So, Selene must go on the run and protect Eve from twogroups: on the one hand, there’s the organisation which captured the two ofthem and wants to use Eve to develop a cure against vampirism, and on the otherthere’s the not-quite-extinct Lycans, who have somehow managed to create a Lycan that is, as Selene observes, at least twice the size of any she has seen before.

The first two films in this mostly clunky franchise weredirected by Len Wiseman, an art director turned film director; he is alsoBeckinsale’s husband. This time round, Wiseman serves only as a producer andone of the four screenwriters, the direction taken over here by Swedishfilmmakers Måns Mårlind and Björn Stein, who previously gave us supernaturalhorror “Shelter” in 2010. Here, Mårlind and Stein do a good job of copyingWiseman’s visual style, but do a very bad job at just about everything else.

With “Awakening,” the two directors deliver buckets of goreand a boatload of CGI, as one would very much expect from the franchise. Theaction is frequent and very over-the-top, with meaningful dialogue shoved tothe side in favour of blood-soaked badassery. The Lycan effects are rather good,as is the stunt work. Beckinsale, as always, is perfectly fine in the leadingrole, doing a good job with what she’s given. With all of this in place, Ibelieve hardcore fans of the series will get a kick or two out of the film; usnon-fans, however, will just have to suffer through the whole thing.

I read that Beckinsale wished for this film to be more thanjust “lots of explosions and people running around in tight clothes.” “Youreally want to see stakes that mean something in these kind of movies,” shestated. By “stakes,” I assume that she is referring to the inclusion of thedaughter character in the middle of all this gory violence, which actuallyraises the biggest problem with the film, and indeed with its predecessors: wedon’t care.

We, as an audience, don’t care. Why should we care? We aregiven no reason to care, and thus we don’t. We don’t care because there are nocharacters in the script. There are walking cadavers leaping about and firingguns, sure, but there are no characters to help us become the slightest bitengaged in the plot. Why should we care about a bunch of stone-facedbloodsuckers who are entirely drained of any semblance of personality? Why shouldwe care about their stupid little war with the equally insipid Lycans? Throwinga 12-year-old girl into that mix and placing her in a position of danger doesn’tsuddenly make us care; why should it when the girl is as vacant and dead-eyedas everyone else in the film?

And from this, “Underworld: Awakening” becomes a dreary,boring experience that is exhausting even halfway through its 85-minute length.Sure, it may throw stuff at the camera, it may be loud, it may havebone-snapping and throat-tearing, and it may have Kate Beckinsale running aroundin tight leather, but it is not fun or thrilling, much as it believes itself tobe; it is instead a chore to watch, and honestly, much as it pains me to sayit, I’d rather be watching “Twilight.”

3/10

The Descendants

2012-01-18T18:59:00.000Z

Since his feature-film debut in 1996, writer-directorAlexander Payne has established himself as a fine maker of comedy-dramas, ordramedies. Over a fifteen-year career, Payne has previously given us fourwonderful comedy-dramas in the form of “Citizen Ruth,” “Election,” “AboutSchmidt” and “Sideways,” each of which presented a balancing act for Payne tohandle, and handle them he most certainly did. He continues this trend with“The Descendants,” his first film in seven years and fifth film overall; whilehis latest is most definitely another comedy-drama for Payne, it is a littlelighter on the comedy side than his previous efforts.

“The Descendants” has as its leading man the dashingly handsomeand roguishly charming Mr George Clooney. The film’s comedy-drama stylings playvery naturally to Clooney’s many talents; Clooney has displayed his comedychops in the Coen Brothers’ “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” and “Burn AfterReading,” and also his dramatic chops in Stephen Gaghan’s “Syriana” and TonyGilroy’s “Michael Clayton.” He also combined the two to much effect in JasonReitman’s comedy-drama “Up in the Air” in 2009.

Here, Clooney plays Matt King, a lawyer who resides inHonolulu in Hawaii. Matt is a descendant of one of Hawaii's first whiteland-owning families. As such, he is the sole trustee of a family trust thatcurrently controls 25,000 acres of land on the island of Kauai. However, thistrust is going to expire in seven years; in reaction, the King family decide tosell the land to Kauai native Don Hollitzer, who plans to develop the land; Matthas agreed to let this happen, though many locals disagree.

As this deal approaches finalisation, Matt’s recentlydistant wife, Elizabeth (Patricia Hastie), ends up in a boating accident, whichleaves her in a coma; doctors are unsure if she will ever wake from this. Mattis consequently left on his own to care for his two daughters, inappropriate 10-year-oldScottie (Amara Miller) and foul-mouthed 17-year-old Alexandra (ShaileneWoodley, “The Secret Life of the American Teenager”). Matt is, as he callshimself, a “back-up parent,” and so finds being a father a toughresponsibility.

To further complicate matters, when Alexandra returns homefrom boarding school, she reveals to her father that she saw her mother withanother man some time ago. Matt then discovers that his wife was having anaffair with a real estate agent called Brian Speer (Matthew Lillard, “Scooby-Doo”)up until the boating incident. He then becomes determined to meet Mr Speerface-to-face, although what he will say or do to him he is unsure of.

Like Payne’s previous three films, “The Descendants”originates from a novel, in this case the novel of the same name by Kaui HartHemmings, which I myself am unfamiliar with. Perhaps this is why, again likePayne’s previous three films, “The Descendants” is so rich in character; in anovel, a writer has as much space as they want to fully develop and flesh out acharacter with written description. In a film, this is naturally moredifficult, but Payne somehow always manages to pull this off, especially whenhis characters have been previously portrayed and developed in a novel; hisfilms, in essence, are played out like live-action novels, armed with a sharpsense of character and a staggering ability to express its characters’ innercomplexities.

It’s in the subtleties of the acting and of the script (co-writtenby Payne, Nat Faxon and Jim Rash) through which this is achieved. Clooney isand always has been an incredibly talented actor, and as such is fully capableof expressing these tiny hints of his character’s thoughts and motivations; Istruggle to think of anyone else who could have played this role. The script, atremendous piece of writing, spells out very little about its characters, ofwhich there are many, yet somehow it expresses very much; it also shows thatthere is much more to a person than what lies atop the surface.

Take the character of Sid (Nick Krause), Alexandra’sboyfriend, for example. On the surface, Sid is a blithering idiot of a teenageboy; he’s inappropriate, inconsiderate, hopelessly dense and the verydefinition of a numbskull. There’s little movement going on in this boy’s head,we believe, as does Matt. And yet, in a late-night conversation with Matt, Sidis revealed to have experienced the pain and heartache of losing someone, whichSid talks about with touching sincerity; Matt’s opinion of Sid is seen tochange, as we see in his shifting expression.

So, that’s the drama part taken care of, but what about thecomedy? Well, “The Descendants” is strong on this side too, although the comedyis much less prominent than its dramatic counterpart. The script has a charminglywry sense of humour and enjoys playing with its characters; at one point, it putsthe limitlessly ignorant Sid in a room with Matt’s Alzheimer’s-sufferingmother-in-law (Barbara L. Southern) and hard-ass, permanently stone-facedfather-in-law (Robert Forster, “Jackie Brown”), leaving us to wait and see howlong it takes for Sid to get punched in the face. A shot of George Clooney franticallyrunning through the neighbourhood in his flippity-flopping flip-flops alsoraises quite a giggle.

Speaking of flip-flops, I can’t do this review withouttalking about Hawaii. The 50th American state is a prominent feature of the film, asopposed to just being an atypical setting; it’s as important to the film asFargo was to “Fargo.” Every character in the film walks about in Hawaiianshirts, shorts and indeed flip-flops, even during business meetings. They allhave prominent tans, the blisteringly hot sun always shining in the sky. Thesoundtrack consists entirely of ukulele tunes, accompanied by the soothingvoices of many Hawaiian singers. The setting also works with one of the film’sthemes: Hawaii may look like a never-ending paradise for its many inhabitants,but it’s not; in spite of the sun and the sandals, Hawaiians experience thesame troubles and worries that us boring norms do.

“The Descendants” is another dramedic hit for AlexanderPayne. It is a film that is handled with intelligence and is rich in emotionand humour; it is a beautifully acted and terrifically written look at theeffects of loss and betrayal. I believe the film will enjoy much success comeOscar nomination time, and maybe even Oscar-winning time, and also do quite a bigfavour to the Hawaiian tourist board.

9/10

The Devil Inside

2012-01-17T00:16:00.000Z

It’s sort of developed into a general rule that “found-footage” films must end abruptly. Earlier offerings from the presently popular subgenresuch as “The Blair Witch Project” and “Cloverfield” helped to establish thisrule, ending their stories without warning and thus providing a chilling senseof ambiguity. William Brent Bell’s low-budget horror picture “The Devil Inside”is a found-footage film that fully obeys this rule: the screen goes all fuzzy,it cuts to black without warning and promptly ends, surrounded by a whole tonof ambiguity. Clichéd as it is, this should be a perfectly fine way to end afilm such as this – the problem is that this all happens at precisely the wrongmoment.

Before its ending, “The Devil Inside” is a dull and boringrip-off of “The Exorcist;” it’s only during the last five or ten minutes thatit gets the slightest bit interesting. It’s during these moments that the filmseems to be teetering towards some big, probably overblown climax; very strangethings are happening, people are dying and everything’s going a bit wrong forour protagonists. It’s clear that the film is building up to something big and,against all odds, has somehow managed to become slightly intriguing.

And then it cuts to black. And a title card comes up,telling the audience to visit a fabricated website to find out more details. Andthen it ends. And we, the audience, are angry. Very angry, in fact. We’re very angrynot only because the film just ended as it finally began to become interesting,but also because we suddenly realise that we, as paying moviegoers, have beenhad – it is then that we begin to wonder if all this was filmed just to promotethe film’s supposedly factual website. Imagine Heather tripping over whileholding the camera as she and Mike find the abandoned house in “The Blair Witch Project,”and the film then immediately ending, telling you to go to a website to findout more details. It is indeed that annoying.

The film opens with a title card stating that the Vaticanhave not endorsed the film; given how awful it is, I can’t say I blame them. Wethen hear a recording of a phone call to the police from 1989. The caller is anAmerican woman, Maria Rossi (Suzan Crowley, “Wild About Harry”), who bluntly statesthat she has just murdered three people. We are then shown police footage ofthe horrible crime scene: three people have indeed been murdered inside Rossi’shome; they consist of two priests and a nun, whose blood has been splatteredall across the floor and the walls. It’s a crime only a true monster could havecommitted.

Well, it turns out this may be true: it is soon revealedthat the murders occurred during an exorcism that was being performed on Mariain her own home. Yes, Maria, who is sent away to a mental asylum in Rome, isapparently possessed by a demon, or demons. And in 2009, her 25-year-olddaughter, Isabella (Fernanda Andrade, “Why Am I Doing This?”), is searching foranswers: what exactly happened that night, why was her mother sent all the wayto Italy, is her mother mentally ill, is she demonically possessed, and why onearth is this film so boring?

As I said earlier, the film is a member of the found-footagesubgenre. The way it works here is that the film poses as a documentaryfollowing Isabella as she travels to Rome, meets her mother in an asylum and visitsthe Vatican School for Exorcism (which is like a much less fun Hogwarts). Theproblem with the format is this: the writing and the acting are so utterlydreadful that they render the believability of this supposed “found footage” inescapablylow, leaving the film nearly impossible to become enthralled by. Last year’sfound-footage exorcism horror “The Last Exorcism” also suffered from thisproblem, but made up for it by being entertaining – “The Devil Inside” couldnever dream of achieving this.

It’s also hopeless as a horror flick, failing to provide anysense of terror or dread it so desperately yearns for. It goes through all ofthe demonic possession tropes (the multiple voices, the swearing, the inhumanstrength, the contortionism, etc.), yet is never scary, instead often veeringtowards unintentional hilarity. I must say, it’s mighty difficult to becomescared by a middle-aged lady calling a priest a “faggot” and talking about “skull-fucking”– it was a much different story with the sweet and innocent little girl wewatched slowly but surely turn into a monster in “The Exorcist” almost 40 yearsago.

Give a stranger a camera, a slug line and a special effectsbudget, and they could probably make a better version of “The Devil Inside”than the one that’s currently stinking up a cinema near you. Unfortunately, thestranger that has made this film is Mr Bell, and the result is “The DevilInside,” a tedious bore of a horror flick that will send you to sleep more thanscare you to death. Demonic possession sounds like more fun than sittingthrough this again.

2/10

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

2012-01-14T01:33:00.000Z

It’s interesting: The “James Bond” franchise has recentlydistanced itself from the use of high-tech gadgets while the “Mission:Impossible” franchise is now fully embracing them. Look at “Casino Royale” and “Quantumof Solace,” 007’s last two adventures, and the closest thing you’ll see to a propergadget in either of the two films is an in-car defibrillator that Bond-girlVesper Lynd uses to get Bond’s ticker ticking again when he’s fatally poisoned –this is opposed to the famously ginormous assortment of sophisticated gizmosused in the previous 20 films in the legendary spy series, from magneticwatches to an invisible car.

Now take a look at “Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol,”the fourth film in the very popular action series starring Tom Cruise as IMFAgent Ethan Hunt. Here, it’s like Ethan won that hilariously convoluted competition in “The GadgetShow:” we have magnetic underwear, electromagnetic climbing gloves, facial-recognitioncontact lenses, contact lenses that print its user’s sight when its user blinkstwice, retinal scanners, a big screen that replicates the image behind it, a suitcontaining a massive inflatable landing platform and, of course, a device thatcan make flawless face masks. Also, in one scene, in a very unsubtle case of shamelessproduct placement, an iPad is used (don’t you have enough money already,Apple?).

Yes, it’s gadgets galore in “M:I4,” and the film is all thebetter for it; “Ghost Protocol” is fast, fun, silly and fun – did I mention itwas fun? This is the first film in the inherently goofy “M:I” franchise to fullyembrace its inherent goofiness, cruising along with an endearing sense ofhumour without entirely mocking itself; we, as an audience, are often laughingalong with the film, but we’re still fully engaged in the action-packed narrativeand taking the whole thing fairly seriously.

In this perilous adventure, Mr Hunt is on a mission to stopWorld War III from materialising, a task he must accomplish while on the runfrom the law. Why’s he on the run from the law? Well, Ethan and his crack team (playedby Simon Pegg and Paula Patton) are disavowed by IMF and considered to beterrorists after a sneaky raid for archive files in the Moscow Kremlin ends inthe Kremlin being blown up by a bunch of villainous gits.

It soon transpires that the leader of these villainous gitsis Kurt Hendricks (Michael Nyqvist, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”), aRussian nuclear strategist and total nutcase who wishes to spark nuclear warbetween Russia and the USA. Ethan, Benji (Pegg), Jane (Patton) and mysteriousIMF chief analyst William Brandt (Jeremy Renner, “The Hurt Locker”) must worktogether not only to stop Hendricks from attaining nuclear launch codes, but alsoto clear their names and blow some shit up.

At several points throughout its runtime, “Ghost Protocol”reminded me of Steven Spielberg’s very recent “Tintin” adaptation, in that bothfilms consist of near-relentless action and seem to feed off of a never-endingsource of energy and pizzazz. It’s true: “M:I4” is chock-a-block withincreasingly outlandish and perfectly preposterous set-pieces that, as isalways the case in spy movies, take us on a bit of a world tour; we go fromMoscow in Russia to Dubai in the United Arab Emirates and finally to Mumbai in India.

The set-pieces themselves, and there are many to mention,are magnificently exhilarating and uncontrollably lively, beginning with anintricate escape from a Moscow jail and ending with a punch-up in a multi-levelautomated car garage. But the most exhilarating set-piece is the one you’ve undoubtedlyseen splattered all over the trailers and TV spots, and understandably so. Yes,this is the sequence set inside (and outside) the Burj Khalifa, aka the tallestbuilding in the world, which Ethan is forced to scale using the aforementionedelectromagnetic climbing gloves.

Like a fly on a 2,700 ft windshield, Ethan is left stickingto the windows of what is at the very least the one hundredth floor of this inconceivablytall structure. His life is wholly relying on these high-tech gloves, whichstick to a solid surface after a hard slam and pull away via a curling movement;they also turn out to be more than a little faulty. At one point, he falls down several floors,which I’m not ashamed to admit caused my heart to nearly explode – I can’timagine what the sequence must be like for an acrophobic to watch. Cruiseapparently did this stunt himself; if so, he is either a braver or crazier manthan most, or maybe both.

Perhaps the reason for the film’s unyielding energy is thementality of Brad Bird, the film’s director. Bird, a two-time Oscar-winner, haspreviously directed three films; these are “The Iron Giant,” “The Incredibles”and “Ratatouille,” all of which are animated. As you probably know, animationis a medium in which much energy and imagination is required; Bird more thanaccomplished this with the three aforementioned films – it seems Bird has continuedthis mentality with “Ghost Protocol,” his first live-action feature, and I mustsay it works wonders.

I suppose you’re wondering where “Ghost Protocol” sits withits three predecessors. I’ll say this: It is better than “Mission Impossible,”it is substantially better than “Mission Impossible II,” and it is at the veryleast on a par with “Mission Impossible III.” Anyway, comparisons aside, “GhostProtocol” is a breath-taking slice of white-knuckle action and a tremendouspiece of blockbuster entertainment that should only be missed if you’re asevere acrophobic.

9/10

Margin Call

2012-01-12T01:23:00.000Z

At its beginning, “Margin Call” reminded me of Jason Reitman’s“Up in the Air,” a 2009 comedy-drama which starred George Clooney as a manwhose job it is to visit different companies and tell certain employees thatthey have been laid off. As the film went on, it began to remind me of two morefilms; these were John Wells’ 2010 drama “The Company Men,” which followedthree businessmen as they dealt with the fact that they’ve been laid off, and theDavid Mamet-written 1994 drama “Glengarry Glen Ross,” which saw several realestate salesmen being told that only the top two sellers of the group will remainwith the company come the following week.

These three movies are good movies; actually, one of them issuperb, another is splendid and one of them is, in my opinion, one of the verybest films of the ‘90s. I’m usually of the opinion that reminding a viewer of avery good movie is a ballsy move for a film to do, be it deliberate oraccidental, as the viewer could end up wishing they were watching the very good movieinstead. It’s a testament to how successful “Margin Call” is then that it morethan holds its own when these daunting comparisons arise and also manages to find its ownunique identity alongside these very good movies.

As you can probably guess from these comparisons, “MarginCall” is a film about men in suits. It is also a film about finance, probablythe most boring topic in the world; well, next to mathematics. The film takesplace in a large investment bank, which goes unnamed, at the beginning of the2008 economic meltdown. We are presented with an ensemble cast, only one ofwhom is a lady, who all play employees and employers of this big corporation.

Eric Dale (Stanley Tucci, “The Lovely Bones”), a senior riskanalyst, is laid off by human resources along with 80% of his trading floor. Ashe leaves the building with his big box of things, he hands junior risk analystPeter Sullivan (Zachary Quinto, “Star Trek”) a USB drive and tells him to takea look at what he has recently been working on. “Be careful,” he says ominouslyas the elevator doors close.

So, late that night, when the survivors of his floor areaway celebrating, Peter takes a look at what’s on the USB drive. He completesEric’s work and is a little shocked by what he finds: basically, the numbers onhis screen show that the company is about to fall flat on its jewel-encrusted face.Peter gets co-workers Seth Bregman (Penn Badgley, “Easy A”) and Will Emmerson(Paul Bettany, “Priest”) to come over, who in turn get head of sales Sam Rogers(Kevin Spacey, “Horrible Bosses”) to take a look.

They check the numbers along with head of risk SarahRobertson (Demi Moore, “Bobby”) and head of securities Jared Cohen (SimonBaker, “The Mentalist”), and unfortunately find that the numbers are solid. Byabout 3:00am, an emergency meeting is called and in flies CEO John Tuld (JeremyIrons, “Appaloosa”) in a big fancy helicopter with his associates. Together, theemployees and employers of the company attempt to fix their soon-to-be-broken corporationbefore word gets out that, in layman’s terms, they’re completely screwed.

I’ve seen “Margin Call” being described by some as athriller, which I’m not particularly comfortable with. The word “thriller”instantly gives the impression of something that is filled with excitement andsuspense, and is usually tied to films that would be classified as “edge-of-your-seatentertainment.” “Margin Call” is not this and was not, I believe, intended tobe like this; it is a dialogue-driven drama that is incredibly riveting andoften quite intense, but not classically “thrilling” as the word would have youbelieve.

The film’s script is written with much intelligence and attentionto character by J.C. Chandor. It is a script that gives us engaging charactersand entertaining dialogue that, given what the characters regularly converseabout, is mercifully easy to understand. It also manages to make the filmaccessible, an apparent impossibility in a film revolving around the impenetrablecomplications of the financial world; we may not comprehend every word that isuttered, but Chandor's writing succeeds in making the film tremendously compelling.

I don’t know if you noticed, but the film’s cast is utterly magnificent.Unsurprisingly, “Margin Call” is wonderfully acted, and is done so by actors of both an oldergeneration and a younger generation. The older generation is represented by theendlessly talented Spacey and Irons, who play two big-name men in fierce opposition toeach other. And the younger generation is represented by the likes of up-and-comerQuinto as a number-whiz ex-rocket scientist and a career-high Bettany as amoney-minded rogue (in a good way), although Bettany’s American accent wanders morethan Dion did in the ‘60s.

“Margin Call” is J.C. Chandor’s debut as both a writer and adirector; it’s easily one of the most impressive feature-film debuts I’ve seenin some time. Chandor writes with the ease and finesse of a true professional,and directs with an eye for natural beauty. I trust we shall see many good thingsfrom this man in the future, so I’d say keep an eye on Mr Chandor.

8/10

War Horse

2012-01-10T00:37:00.000Z

They say that in show business you should never work withchildren or animals; legendary director Steven Spielberg has certainly workedwith children before, but “War Horse,” the filmmaker’s 29^th film,marks his first big work with a member of the animal kingdom – well, that is unlessyou want to include mechanical sharks, genetically-engineered dinosaurs and torch-fingeredextra-terrestrials in that mix.

“War Horse” stars, as I’m sure you can tell, a four-leggedequine mammal in the leading role. This is Joey, who is played by fourteendifferent horses throughout the film – this is opposed to the stage play onwhich the film is based, in which Joey was a puppet controlled by puppeteers.The flesh-and-blood horses displayed on-screen here are beautiful creaturesand, perhaps more shockingly, splendid actors. Joey acts as the film’sprotagonist, although the film is more of an ensemble piece, much of the restof the cast consisting of human beings.

The story revolves around World War I, as seen through theeyes of a “miraculous” horse. During a public auction in 1914, young Joey ispurchased for thirty guineas by down-on-his-luck English farmer Ted Narracott (PeterMullan, “Tyrannosaur”), who believes there’s something special about the horse.Ted’s kindly son, Albert (Jeremy Irvine, “Life Bites”), agrees and beginsbonding with Joey. He excitedly teaches Joey to react to his whistle, trainshim to be a plow horse, rides him and presumably showers him with sugar lumpsat some point.

Unfortunately for Albert, Ted is forced to sell Joey to the Britisharmy soon after news of the war breaks out. Captain Nicholls (Tom Hiddleston, “Thor”),Joey’s new master, promises Albert that he will take good care of Joey andreturn him safely once the war is over. Nicholls takes off with the rest of thearmy in the direction of inevitable carnage, though Albert vows that he willsee his beloved horse once again.

And so begins an eventful adventure for this plucky littlehorse, as he is taken across war-torn Europe under the guidance of severaldifferent masters. One minute he’s with the British army, the next he’s withthe German army, another he’s on a French farm, and soon enough he’s leaping overthe trenches of both German and British soldiers, all the while yearning to beback in the arms of his true owner, Albert.

To say the film is slightly episodic would be anunderstatement; by its very nature it is episodic, its narrative structureconsisting of different chapters connected only by the presence of this helplesshorse. This is both a positive and a negative; on the one hand, each chapterintroduces interesting characters, intriguing situations and acts as a very entertainingself-contained story; on the other hand, the narrative’s slackness can be a bitannoying on occasion.

Nonetheless, the film is fully engaging from start to finish,even with a story that is beyond far-fetched (Joey’s constant luck leaves onesuspicious that he is in fact a hornless unicorn). The many characters withwhich we are presented are rich and full of personality and motivation; it alsohelps that they are wonderfully performed by actors who carry much charisma. AlongsideIrvine, Mullan and Hiddlestone, we have the talents of Emily Watson, DavidThewlis, Benedict Cumberbatch, Eddie Marsan, Toby Kebbell and Niels Arestrup. Spielberghas assembled a very fine cast for a very fine film.

There’s little use in denying that the story is cheesy; it’scheesy with a capital C, in fact. Yes, sentimentality runs thick throughout thetwo-and-a-half-hour length as Joey the horse clippity-clops his way intodangerous situations and has an inexplicably overwhelming effect on thosearound him. The love and connection shared between Joey and Albert is also atad corny, perhaps unavoidably so. Some will find this bearable and may even bereaching for sheets of Kleenex, while others will find themselves groaningtheir way through the thing – I myself found it tear-jerkingly effective as itneared its moving end.

Spielberg and cinematographer Janusz Kamiński remain mastersof the camera; “War Horse” is surely among the most visually arresting filmsthe pair have photographed together. From the beautiful sunsets of the Frenchcountryside to the bloody battles between German and British forces, the film isa visual marvel featuring set-pieces that are a wonder to behold – the sights ofJoey leaping over trenches are in particular breath-taking.

Spielberg has directed three wartime films in the past:these are “Empire of the Sun,” “Schindler’s List” and “Saving Private Ryan.” While“War Horse” is not in the same league as these three masterpieces, it is still anexcellent drama with a heart-warming and accessible story, superb acting,visual magnificence, a bold ambition and a beautiful horse.

8/10

The Sitter

2012-01-06T23:01:00.001Z

Like last year’s comedy hit “Bridesmaids,” “The Sitter”begins with the unmistakable sound of a woman having an orgasm; this titillatinglynaughty sound gives the immediate impression that the film one has begun watchingis going to be vulgar and raunchy – indeed, the film doesn’t disappoint in thisarea, and is possibly the only area in which the film does not disappoint. Whatthis sound also does, however, is a disservice to the film itself, because itimmediately reminds one of the aforementioned “Bridesmaids,” which is a verygood film, as opposed to “The Sitter,” which is a very bad film – there’slittle worse that a bad comedy can do than remind the viewer of a good comedy thatthey may realise they could and should be watching instead.

“The Sitter” works – or doesn’t – as a vehicle for JonahHill, a talented comedy actor from such films as “Get Him to the Greek,” “Superbad”and “Cyrus.” Hill also recently starred in sports drama “Moneyball,” in whichhe showed that he is just as talented at drama as he is at comedy, if not moreso. But no, “The Sitter” calls for Hill to go back to his increasingly familiarcomedy routine, which oddly still works for the most part, but sadly does notcome close to being enough to rescue this pile of garbage.

Hill stars as Noah, a suspended college student who, in spiteof his biblical name, is not the kind of person you’d let babysit your children– he’s foul-mouthed, irresponsible, reckless and a bit of a drunk. However, ina hilarious turn of events, Noah ends up being – gasp – a babysitter, thoughthankfully for one night only – it is a night that turns out to be rather eventful,though unfortunately not the slightest bit funny.

Noah has to babysit the three horrible children of hismother’s friend (whom the camera lets us know has very large breasts) when thenormal babysitter pulls out. The three children are as follows: Blithe (LandryBender), an inappropriate celebrity wannabe who smothers herself in make-up;Slater (Max Records, “Where the Wild Things Are”), a glamour model wannabe with“issues;” and Rodrigo (Kevin Hernandez), an adopted Mexican pyromaniac whoenjoys running away from home and blowing up toilets.

As you can imagine, things go a little haywire once mummyand daddy are away, signalling the annoying little rats to play, and play hardthey most certainly do. But it’s not until Noah gets an invitation from hisslutty girlfriend for sexual intercourse that things really go down theshitter, the film included. What follows is, of course, an increasinglydisastrous and deeply unfunny series of comedic events featuring crazysituations and colourful characters, including Sam Rockwell as a rollerbladingdrug dealer who owns a dinosaur egg.

The film feasts off of this one unexceptional concept (anirresponsible individual placed into a position of high responsibility) andlazily runs with it for almost the whole runtime. There is very littleimagination put into the script (written by first-time screenwriters BrianGatewood and Alessandro Tanaka), much of the film’s comedy relying on outrageouslytired comedy tropes such as nutty drug dealers, grand theft auto, childrenswearing, the acquiring of cocaine, and angry, angry black people. The resultis this tedious film that doesn’t so much as raise a smile as crush a soul.

My main problem with “The Sitter” is this: anyone with theslightest familiarity with both Jonah Hill and the objectives of babysitterscould have very easily written this film, possibly more competently than Gatewoodand Tanaka managed to do. All one has to do is copy the formula we’ve seen inprevious films such as “Dude, Where’s My Car?” and “Superbad,” apply it to theirresponsible-babysitter plot, throw in some unexpected life lessons, andvoila, we have “The Sitter,” the comedy film equivalent of a 13-year-old sniggeringat the sound of a woman having an orgasm.

I mentioned life lessons there; yes, it’s true, “The Sitter”actually has the nerve to try and teach its audience life lessons. For example,there’s one about not hiding your true self and accepting who you really are –how enlightening. Now, I obviously can’t speak for the rest of the film’sviewers, but I myself am strongly opposed to having to listen to life lessonsfrom a film that features, among many other things, a small child publically urinatingin the middle of a Bar Mitzvah and another loudly shitting herself while seatedin a minivan; those are pretty much the comedy highlights of this film.

The only real saving grace of “The Sitter” is itsrelentlessly frenetic pace, a sure sign of the writers’ short attention span; whatthe fast pacing means is that the narrative is gotten through very quickly,resulting in the film lasting a merciful length of 77 minutes. Nevertheless, 125 minutesof fellow babysitter comedy “Mrs. Doubtfire” is significantly easier to getthrough than half an hour of this R-rated rubbish.

3/10

Young Adult

2012-01-04T21:38:00.000Z

“Young Adult” marks the second collaboration betweentalented screenwriter Diablo Cody and very talented director Jason Reitman. Thepair’s first film together was “Juno,” the surprise smash-hit comedy of 2007about a teenage girl whose likability depended almost entirely on one’stolerance for quirky-turkey dialogue. “Young Adult” is slightly different; ittoo is a comedy, albeit a very dark one, about a teenage girl, only this one ispushing 40, but whose likability depends almost entirely on one’s tolerance notfor quirky-turkey dialogue but for juvenile bitchiness.

This character is Mavis Gary, played by AcademyAward-winning actress Charlize Theron (“Monster”). At 37 years young, Mavis isa moderately successful author of “Twilight”-esque novels intended for youngadults – as is the case with every writer to ever feature in a film, Mavis issuffering from a spot of writer’s block. And when Mavis is not staring blanklyat the blinking cursor on her laptop screen in her pig sty of a condo, she’schugging back gallons of alcohol like a hamster at its water bottle – the fact thatMavis suffers from alcoholism is undeniable, and has also probably helped shapethe person she is at the film’s beginning.

As Mavis takes another hopeless stab at writing her newnovel, her ex-boyfriend, Buddy (Patrick Wilson, “Insidious”), sends her anemail inviting her to come to he and his wife’s baby shower in their small hometownof Mercury, Minnesota. Mavis suddenly realises something: that she and Buddyshould be together; that Buddy and his wife, Beth (Elizabeth Reaser, “Twilight”),should not be together; that it should be Buddy and Mavis’ baby shower, notBuddy and Beth’s; that Buddy and Mavis were always meant to be together.

So, Mavis packs her bags, packs her dog and heads off toMinnesota to win back the heart of her happily married family man of ahigh-school sweetheart, seemingly oblivious to the sheer idiocy of her actions.Luckily, there’s someone to point out this idiocy to her: this is Matt (Patton Oswalt, “BigFan”), a crippled ex-classmate of Mavis from whom Mavis receives some frankcriticism when she bumps into him in a bar – still, Mavis does not listen toher brand new buddy and stubbornly continues with her not-so-noble quest.

I believe many will walk into “Young Adult” expecting light,breezy, R-rated fun with a caricature of immaturity stropping about in the leadrole; strip the plot to its bare essentials and it certainly sounds like this.However, those who walk into the film with expectations such as this will behit with quite a shock – “Young Adult” is in fact a very sad and frequently gloomycharacter study with touches of jet-black comedy scattered along the side.

I’d say the film is Cody’s most mature film to date, althoughthat’s no difficult feat when your previous theatrical releases are a brightand bubbly indie comedy starring Ellen Page and a teen-oriented horror comedystarring Megan Fox. It is Cody’s first attempt at a proper character study, andshe has given herself a fascinating character to pick apart and examinethoroughly – Mavis is also a fascinating character for us, as an audience, toobserve and get some insight into.

Mavis is a woman suffering from alcoholism, depression and,as revealed later, trichotillomania (aka compulsive pulling of the hair). She isimmature, arrogant, self-centred, unpleasant and self-destructive. She is agrown woman still desperately clinging onto her high-school days, a time when she waspopular; essentially, she’s a 17-year-old trapped in a 37-year-old’s body. Weare given no real reason to care about her, although some sympathy comes inresponse to how, frankly, pathetic she is. The film does not judge her, but itdoes not necessarily empathise with her either.

It goes without saying that Theron is magnificent in therole; she is a wonderful actress and also one of the most versatile in thebusiness. However, not all of the acting praise goes to her; we also haveOswalt, a stand-up comedian and sitcom actor who impressed with his dramaticturn in 2009’s “Big Fan.” He is equally impressive here as a supporting characterwho bonds with Mavis over the course of the film. Like Mavis, Matt is also yetto let go of his high-school years, during which he was violently attacked forbeing gay, in spite of the fact that he is not gay.

The film is Reitman’s fourth, theAmerican/Canadian filmmaker having previously directed “Thank You for Smoking,”“Up in the Air” and, as mentioned earlier, “Juno.” And while it may lack theflamboyant visual flair displayed in his previous films, “Young Adult” isbeautifully handled by the very gifted director. I can also see what he sees inCody: she’s a splendid writer with an ear for dialogue and a great sense ofcharacter.

“Young Adult” is a fearless film – it gives us a clinically unlikablemain character and dares us to relate to her. It is an intriguing study ofa complex character: a woman who is selfish and nasty, yet wholly authentic. While funny onoccasion, it is also bleak and upsetting, leaving us with a lingering feelingof sadness. It’s a powerful drama and I’m sure in time it will prove itself tobe an unforgettable watch.

8/10

Every Single Film I Watched for the First Time in 2011

2012-01-01T15:12:00.000Z

Listed below is everysingle film I watched for the first time in the long-gone year of 2011. It’sbeen a fun year of obsessive movie-watching; I viewed many flicks that were newlyreleased and even more that were unseen classics/pieces of shit. So, take alook, or don’t if you're a douchebag (take a skim-read, at least!), and be amazed at my oh-so-amazing skillof sitting on my lazy arse and watching lots and lots of films. Note: rewatchesare not included.

January

"The HeartbreakKid" (1972)

"LittleFockers" (2010)

"Gulliver'sTravels" (2010)

"127 Hours"(2010)

"Yogi Bear"(2010)

"Season of theWitch" (2010)

"True Grit"(2010)

"Deep BlueSea" (1999)

"Dracula: Deadand Loving It" (1995)

"The King'sSpeech" (2010)

"The GreenHornet" (2011)

"BlueValentine" (2010)

"I Spit on YourGrave" (2010)

"What Happens in Vegas" (2008)

"A Serbian Film" (2010)

"Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale" (2010)

"The Company Men" (2011)

"Something's Gotta Give" (2003)

"A Single Man" (2009)

"P.S. I Love You" (2007)

"The Mechanic" (2011)

Monthly count: 21

Film of the month: "The King's Speech"

February

"The Rite" (2011)

"Neds" (2011)

"Vanishing on 7th Street" (2011)

"Agatha" (1979)

"Fantastic Four: Rise of

the Silver Surfer" (2007)

"Sanctum" (2011)

"Sleeper" (1973)

"Diabolique" (1996)

"Taken" (2008)

"The Strangers" (2008)

"Tucker and Dale vs. Evil" (2011)

"Right at Your Door" (2006)

"No Strings Attached" (2011)

"The Roommate" (2011)

"Going the Distance" (2010)

"Leon"(1994)

"TheDilemma" (2011)

"Just Go withIt" (2011)

"Starman"(1984)

"Paul"(2011)

"Unknown"(2011)

"Gnomeo andJuliet" (2011)

"Big Mommas:Like Father,

Like Son" (2011)

"OfficeSpace" (1999)

"Run LolaRun" (1998)

"HighCrimes" (2002)

Monthly count: 26

Film of the month:"Neds"

March

"I Am NumberFour" (2011)

"AnimalKingdom" (2010)

"Rango"(2011)

"Hot Tub TimeMachine" (2010)

"DriveAngry" (2011)

"The AdjustmentBureau" (2011)

"Hall Pass"(2011)

"SupermanIII" (1983)

"One AngryJuror" (2010)

"The Edge ofLove" (2008)

"Celine"(2008)

"TMNT"(2007)

"Battle: LosAngeles" (2011)

"HardTarget" (1993)

"Chaos"(2005)

"Bunny and theBull" (2009)

"Cemetery Junction"(2010)

"Atonement"(2007)

"HotelRwanda" (2004)

"Crying withLaughter" (2009)

"TheHowling" (1981)

"Limitless"(2011)

"Red RidingHood" (2011)

"Who's Afraid ofVirginia Woolf?" (1966)

"Breakfast atTiffany's" (1961)

"Mars NeedsMoms" (2011)

"3:10 toYuma" (2007)

"You Don't Mess
with the Zohan" (2008)

"Deuce Bigalow:

European Gigolo" (2005)

"Rope"(1948)

Monthly count: 30

Film of the month:"Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?"

April

"Submarine"(2011)

"Magicians"(2007)

"Beverly HillsCop" (1984)

"SourceCode" (2011)

"SuckerPunch" (2011)

"Hop" (2011)

"Hobo with aShotgun" (2011)

"Thirteen"(2003)

"Into theWild" (2007)

"The Fog"(1980)

"DirtyHarry" (1971)

"Braindead"(1992)

"MulhollandDrive" (2001)

"Rio" (2011)

"Winnie the Pooh" (2011)

"Scream 4"(2011)

"Piñero"(2001)

"TamaraDrewe" (2010)

"Across theUniverse" (2007)

"Hanna"(2011)

"TheNotebook" (2004)

"Super"(2011)

"The SkeletonKey" (2005)

"Thor"(2011)

"The Return ofthe Living Dead" (1985)

"The CryingGame" (1992)

"Fast Five" (2011)

"Insidious"(2011)

"Up in theAir" (2009)

"The MagnificentAmbersons" (1942)

Monthly count: 30

Film of the month:"Up in the Air"

May

"NationalTreasure" (2004)

"A Few GoodMen" (1992)

"NationalLampoon's
Barely Legal" (2003)

"Casino"(1995)

"Beastly" (2011)

"Water forElephants" (2011)

"Naked Gun 331/3: The
Final Insult" (1994)

"Attack theBlock" (2011)

"Serenity"(2005)

"Priest"(2011)

"Sugarhouse"(2007)

"Apollo 13"(1995)

"BlackSheep" (2006)

"SomethingBorrowed" (2011)

"FatalAttraction" (1987)

"The UsualSuspects" (1995)

"When Harry MetSally" (1989)

"Magnolia"(1999)

"The Birds"(1963)

"The Wave"(2008)

"Baby Mama"(2008)

"Pirates of theCaribbean: On Stranger Tides" (2011)

"BlazingSaddles" (1974)

"World'sGreatest Dad" (2009)

"The Rocky HorrorPicture Show" (1975)

"Eyes WideShut" (1999)

"HardBoiled" (1992)

"The Hangover:Part II" (2011)

"TheRainmaker" (1997)

"The TenCommandments" (1956)

"Kung Fu Panda2" (2011)

"Triangle"(2009)

Monthly count: 32

Film of the month:"Magnolia"

June

"X-Men: FirstClass" (2011)

"Chatroom"(2010)

"Lars and theReal Girl" (2007)

"The LostBoys" (1987)

"RearWindow" (1954)

"Nosferatu"(1922)

"I Now PronounceYou Chuck

and Larry" (2007)

"The Fall of theRoman Empire" (1964)

"Troy"(2004)

"Definitely,Maybe" (2008)

"FreezeFrame" (2004)

"TheShadow" (1994)

"GreenLantern" (2011)

"TheUnloved" (2009)

"Braveheart"(1995)

"NightWatch" (2004)

"TheBeaver" (2011)

"Bridesmaids"(2011)

"Cars 2"(2011)

"TradingPlaces" (1983)

"Spaceballs"(1987)

"My DogSkip" (2000)

"Transformers:Dark of the Moon" (2011)

"The Rock"(1996)

"AmericanSplendor" (2003)

"Swimming withSharks" (1994)

Monthly count: 26

Film of the month:"Rear Window"

July

"Glengarry GlenRoss" (1992)

"Blue Car"(2002)

"WorkingGirl" (1988)

"All thePresident's Men" (1976)

"EpicMovie" (2007)

"BadTeacher" (2011)

"Gangs of NewYork" (2002)

"Metropolis"(1927)

"Armageddon"(1998)

"Harry Potterand the Deathly Hallows: Part 2" (2011)

"Rendition"(2007)

"Doom"(2005)

"Capitalism: ALove Story" (2009)

"Zookeeper"(2011)

"The Tree ofLife" (2011)

"IntolerableCruelty" (2003)

"Schindler'sList" (1993)

"HorribleBosses" (2011)

"Empire of theSun" (1987)

"Angus, Thongsand
Perfect Snogging" (2008)

"CaptainAmerica:
The First Avenger" (2011)

"Welcome to theDollhouse" (1995)

Monthly count: 22

Film of the month:"All the President's Men"

August

"What JustHappened?" (2008)

"TreesLounge" (1996)

"BoogieNights" (1997)

"Arrietty"(2011)

"Memoirs of anInvisible Man" (1992)

"TheSmurfs" (2011)

"Super 8"(2011)

"The RoyalTenenbaums" (2001)

"Cowboys andAliens" (2011)

"Friends withBenefits" (2011)

"Planet of theApes" (1968)

"Starsuckers"(2009)

"Star Trek II:The Wrath of Khan" (1982)

"Sleepless inSeattle" (1993)

"Fish Tank"(2009)

"Rise of thePlanet of the Apes" (2011)

"The Help"(2011)

"Red Road"(2006)

"Spy Kids: Allthe
Time in the World" (2011)

"FrightNight" (1985)

"FrightNight" (2011)

"FinalDestination 5" (2011)

"The Skin I LiveIn" (2011)

Monthly count: 23

Film of the month:"Boogie Nights"

September

"TheChange-Up" (2011)

"Apollo 18"(2011)

"Red State"(2011)

"13Assassins" (2011)

"Rosemary'sBaby" (1968)

"The TrollHunter" (2011)

"O Brother,Where Art Thou?" (2000)

"TheAssassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" (2007)

"Tinker TailorSoldier Spy" (2011)

"Warrior"(2011)

"TheInbetweeners Movie" (2011)

"KillerElite" (2011)

"Rounders"(1998)

"Butch Cassidyand the
Sundance Kid" (1969)

"Drive"(2011)

"Abduction"(2011)

Monthly count: 16

Film of the month:"The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford"

October

"Thank You forSmoking" (2005)

"To Kill aMockingbird" (1962)

"Johnny EnglishReborn" (2011)

"Eddie MurphyRaw" (1987)

"TheApartment" (1960)

"Melancholia"(2011)

"Midnight inParis" (2011)

"Stardust"(2007)

"The ThreeMusketeers" (2011)

"RealSteel" (2011)

"Don't Be Afraidof the Dark" (2011)

"This is SpinalTap" (1984)

"Contagion"(2011)

"ParanormalActivity 3" (2011)

"The Ides ofMarch" (2011)

"Daddy DayCamp" (2007)

"PaperMoon" (1973)

"The Adventuresof Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn" (2011)

"BriefEncounter" (1945)

"Vertigo"(1958)

"The HumanCentipede II (Full Sequence)" (2011)

"Ghosts ofGirlfriends Past" (2009)

"Halloween: TheCurse of Michael Myers" (1995)

"Ginger Snaps:Unleashed" (2004)

"GingerSnaps" (2000)

"Halloween:Resurrection" (2002)

Monthly count: 26

Film of the month:"Vertigo"

November

"In Time"(2011)

"The RumDiary" (2011)

"30 Minutes orLess" (2011)

"TowerHeist" (2011)

"Alvin and theChipmunks" (2007)

"Ice Age 3: Dawnof
the Dinosaurs" (2009)

"Management"(2008)

"ArthurChristmas" (2011)

"Whip It"(2009)

"Chicago"(2002)

"Hell and BackAgain" (2011)

"The TwilightSaga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1" (2011)

"Vacancy"(2007)

"Mr Magorium'sWonder
Emporium" (2007)

"Akira"(1988)

"Innerspace"(1987)

"Cloudy with aChance
of Meatballs" (2009)

"I Love You,Man" (2009)

"Tootsie"(1982)

"50/50"(2011)

"Moneyball"(2011)

"The Prince andthe Showgirl" (1957)

"The'burbs" (1989)

"St. Trinian's"(2007)

"The Astronaut'sWife" (1999)

"Robocop"(1987)

"Network"(1976)

Monthly count: 27

Film of the month:"Network"

December

"TakeShelter" (2011)

"Hugo"(2011)

"Escape fromAlcatraz" (1979)

"The Thing"(2011)

"Jack andJill" (2011)

"Deck theHalls" (2006)

"TheArtist" (2011)

"HeavenlyCreatures" (1994)

"GreatExpectations" (1946)

"Westworld"(1973)

"OliverTwist" (1948)

"Where the TruthLies" (2005)

"Who FramedRoger Rabbit" (1988)

"Toys"(1992)

"Walk Hard:
TheDewey Cox Story" (2007)

"Pom Poko"(1994)

"We Need to TalkAbout Kevin" (2011)

"OliverTwist" (2005)

“New Year’s Eve”(2011)

"Nausicaa of theValley
of the Wind" (1984)

"Tyrannosaur"(2011)

"Bad Santa"(2003)

"Alvin and theChipmunks:
Chipwrecked" (2011)

"Nativity!"(2009)

"My NeighbourTotoro" (1988)

"Hairspray"(2007)

"ASeparation" (2011)

“Cat People” (1942)

“Bedtime Stories”(2008)

“Kill List” (2011)

“The Heartbreak Kid”(2007)

“It’s a Boy GirlThing” (2006)

“Sherlock Holmes: A
Game of Shadows” (2011)

“The Darkest Hour”(2011)

“Oldboy” (2003)

“Mad Max 2: The RoadWarrior” (1981)

Monthly count: 36

Film of the month: “Oldboy”

Yearly Count: 315

The Top 10 Worst Films of 2011

2011-12-31T20:47:00.000Z

Yesterday evening, I posted a list of what I believe to bethe top 25 best films of 2011; now it’s time to look at the opposite end of thespectrum. Listed below are the ten films I believe to be the worst of the worstof 2011 – yes, these are the cinema releases that most made me want to vomitand gag and peel the flesh from my face. While 2011 certainly offered us someenchanting, intelligent and inspiring pieces of cinema, it unfortunately alsoproduced a wide array of calamitous clunkers that numbed the mind and churnedthe stomach. Some had cross-dressing, some had fart gags, some had nose-pickingand one had a human centipede. So, let’s brace ourselves and take a look backat the top ten worst films of 2011 – be smug, happy and bright-eyed if you’vemanaged to avoid any of these.

10. “Apollo 18”

On a scale of “Plan 9 from OuterSpace” to “2001: A Space Odyssey,” “Apollo 18” probably sits at about the samelevel as that “Lost in Space” film starring Joey from “Friends.” It’s ascience-fiction film set on the moon – this immediately brings to mind DuncanJones’ masterful sci-fi thriller “Moon,” a comparison which is never going towork in “Apollo 18”’s favour. Unlike “Moon,” however, “Apollo 18” is a horrorfilm and is presented to us as found footage, a la “The Blair Witch Project”and “Paranormal Activity,” though to even less convincing effect. Its footageis of a supposed Apollo 18 mission to the moon that NASA launched in 1974. Themission goes horribly wrong when the astronauts land on the moon’s surface anddiscover that there are vicious little crab-like creatures lurking aboutoutside their craft. On paper, this may sound like a perfectly interestingpremise, but I assure you that in practice, “Apollo 18” is anything butinteresting. It is in fact a dull, boring and tedious piece of space horrorthat takes what seems like forever to get going and feels overlong even at alength of 90 minutes. Zero gravity? More like zero effort.

9. “Sucker Punch”

Unlike the rest of the films on this list, all of which Iwatched knowing damn well they’d be utterly terrible, I walked into “SuckerPunch” expecting a genuinely decent movie. I took the film’s overwhelminglynegative reviews with a pinch of salt and walked into the film with the generalidea that I was about to experience a supremely awesome time at the cinema.Instead, “Sucker Punch” turned out to be something entirely different: a mind-numbing disaster of a film thatdiscarded narrative coherency in favour of lovely visuals. The film is afantasy actioner co-written and directed by Zack “300” Snyder. It stars EmilyBrowning as Babydoll, a young lady who is placed inside a mental asylum by her sadisticrapist of a stepfather. For some strange reason, the asylum swiftly transformsinto a brothel where Babydoll must dance for perverted male clients. Evenstranger, every time Babydoll starts dancing she is transported to a fantasyworld where she, along with the asylum/brothel’s inmates/dancers, must battlesupernatural creatures. Umm, yeah. Like Snyder’s previous efforts (most ofwhich I genuinely liked), “Sucker Punch” has plenty of visual magnificence, butit’s in every other area that the film suffers. Sure, it’s an ambitious andoriginal effort, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s an arse-numbing,headache-inducing 110 minutes of unrelenting tedium that succeeds in beingentertaining only in brief, unsatisfying spurts – I expect more from a filminvolving zombie Nazis, gun-toting cyborgs and fire-breathing dragons.

8. “Abduction”

If anyone out there is unsure as to whether or not TaylorLautner is nothing more than a glorified porn actor, then “Abduction” willsettle your mind: yes, he is. Directed by the once-talented John Singleton,“Abduction” saw Lautner in his first proper leading role, and it’s almosthilarious – actually, it is very hilarious – just how much he managed to screwit up. Lautner stars as Nathan Harper, a hunky teen who, after seeing a pictureof himself on a missing person’s website, discovers that his parents are not infact his parents. Soon after this shocking discovery that was revealed in thetrailers, Nathan’s parents are murdered by assassins, forcing Nathan to go onthe run with pointless love interest Karen (played by Lily Collins), all thewhile trying to figure out his true identity. With sloppy direction, laughabledialogue and a cardboard cut-out of a leading man, “Abduction” is a half-assedand ham-fisted excuse for an action picture; I’d say it’s taking a few too manypages from the “Bourne” trilogy’s book, but I honestly don’t think this filmcan read.

7. “New Year’s Eve”

Perhaps the most shocking thing about “New Year’s Eve” isthat it attracted the interest of three highly respected Oscar-winning actors(Hilary Swank, Halle Berry and Robert De Niro); it’s also of note that itattracted the interest of a few Teen Choice Award-winners and -nominees (AshtonKutcher and Zac Efron, among others), though that is significantly lessshocking. The film is essentially a semi-sequel to the tedious 2010 rom-comensemble piece “Valentine’s Day;” it has the same director (Garry Marshall),the same writer (Katherine Fugate), the same general premise and some of thesame actors (though all playing slightly different characters). It takes placeon (duh) New Year’s Eve and follows a convoluted band of ridiculouslygood-looking New York couples and singletons as they experience drama, romanceand other deeply uninteresting trials and tribulations. Meanwhile, the wholeworld waits impatiently for the drop of the big ball in Times Square that willmark the very beginning of 2012. Sounds positively riveting, does it not?Blandly written and ceaselessly dull, the sickeningly syrupy “New Year’s Eve”is a two-hour endurance test featuring unfunny comedy, undramatic drama andunbearable characters; some of the more respectable A-listers do appear to putsome effort into their roles, but it’s a struggle to shake the feeling thatthey’re just picking up a quick paycheck.

6. “Big Mommas: LikeFather, Like Son”

Adding to the ever-growing list of “sequels nobody askedfor” was the third instalment of the much-derided “Big Momma” franchise – yes,somehow we’ve let it get this far. This insipid threequel sees a desperateMartin Lawrence dressing up as a big fat old lady again, a joke that grewwearisome halfway through the first movie. This time, Malcolm Turner the cross-dressingcop must go into hiding at an all-girls performing arts school along with histeenage stepson, Trent (played by Brandon T. Jackson), after Trent witnesses amurder; Malcolm (or Big Momma) gets a job as the house mother, while Trent (orCharmaine) becomes a student of the school. So, we’re inevitably presented witha wide array of unfunny fat jokes, unfunny awkward situations, unfunny MartinLawrence and, for some inexplicable reason, a random musical number. And it’sall ever so chucklesome because this time there’s not only one Big Momma, buttwo Big Mommas! Ha ha! Oh lawdy lawd. Surprisingly though, “Big Momma 3” wasn’tthe worst cross-dressing comedy of 2011; we shall come to that winner/losersoon.

5. “SomethingBorrowed”

It’s almost unbelievable how unmemorable of a film“Something Borrowed” really is. In fact, it’s a film so unmemorable that when Ilooked at the “worst films of 2011” notes I’ve been jotting down since thesummer, I saw the film’s title and actually had to google the film to rememberwhat the hell it was – even after remembering that I’d watched and reviewed thefilm, my memory of it was still astonishingly vague. Anyway, “SomethingBorrowed” is a romantic comedy – I remember that much. As Wikipedia reminds me,it was based on Emily Giffin’s “chick lit” novel of the same name and starredGinnifer Goodwin as Rachel, a single thirtysomething attorney who sleeps withher best friend’s fiancé. This starts an intricate web of lies and deceit asthese pair of deeply immoral, horny douchebags continue sleeping togetherbehind the best friend’s back. Look, I hardly even remember watching thisuseless piece of shit, let alone reviewing the damn thing, but what I doremember is being freakishly uninterested in every single plot point and characterit contained, so much so that it appears I have turned the film into arepressed memory – put that on your poster, Warner Bros.

4. “The Roommate”

One film I do remember sitting through, however, is “TheRoommate,” which easily takes the gong for the single most boring film of 2011.This is a fact that is made all the more surprising when one remembers that“The Roommate” was intended to be a thriller – y’know, a film that’s meant tothrill. Instead, “The Roommate” is more likely to bore you to tears than getyour heart racing as it intended – indeed, your heart may very well keel overhalfway through this uninspired load of old tosh. The film, which is directedby hilariously named filmmaker Christian Christiansen, stars Minka Kelly asSara Matthews, a girl who has just started her freshman year at college. Herroommate is Rebecca (played by Leighton Meester), who soon turns out to be acrazy psycho-bitch who quickly develops an unhealthy obsession with the unsuspecting Sara.Essentially a cheap knock-off of the far superior “Single White Female,” thisdrab and coma-inducing stalker-thriller arouses one’s interest only in a scenewhere a sweet little pussycat is placed inside a tumble dryer – it surelyaroused interest from the RSPCA too.

3. “Spy Kids 4: Allthe Time in the World”

It is positively mortifying that writer-director RobertRodriguez decided to film “Spy Kids 4: All the Time in the World” instead ofgoing ahead with the hotly anticipated sequel to his untouchable neo-noirmasterpiece, “Sin City;” why Rodriguez believes the world needed anotherinstalment in the “Spy Kids” franchise I don’t know, but what I do know isthis: I want “Sin City 2,” and I want it here, and I want it now. Nevertheless,filming “Spy Kids 4” is exactly what Rodriguez did, and the result is arguablythe worst film of the American filmmaker’s hit-or-miss career – yes, it’s rightdown there with kid-friendly 3D train wreck “The Adventures of Sharkboy andLavagirl.” Essentially acting as an unwanted reboot of the “Spy Kids”franchise, “All the Time in the World” (which was released in 4D, akasmell-o-vision) replaced series regulars Daryl Sabara and Alexa Vega with RowanBlanchard and Mason Cook, two annoying youngsters who, in the film, discoverthat their mother (played by Jessica Alba) is a spy. With the help of theirrobot dog (voiced by Ricky Gervais), these personality-free whippersnappers goup against the villainous Time Keeper, a masked maniac who plans on stealingthe world’s time (don’t ask me to explain because I really don’t know). Chock-a-blockwith an unbearable amount of time-related puns and disturbingly unfunny jokes(most of which involve boogers and poop), “Spy Kids 4” was every bit as dumb as“Spy Kids 3D” and every bit as stale as its 4D gimmick – seriously, Rodriguez,you are better than this.

2. “The HumanCentipede 2 (Full Sequence)”

Director Tom Six promised moviegoers the world over that noone would walk out of the sequel to his cult horror hit “The Human Centipede”complaining that Six hadn’t gone far enough with the violence. Well, Sixachieved this: “The Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence)” is every bit as depravedand grisly as the Dutch filmmaker proudly promised it would be. The onlyproblem is that Six seemed to have either completely forgotten or completelyignored every other aspect that goes into making a movie; making sure it’swatchable, for example. This gore-tastic torture-porn sequel saw Laurence R.Harvey starring as Martin, an obsessive fan of the original “The HumanCentipede.” Martin, who doesn’t utter a single word throughout the entire film,bravely and stupidly aspires to recreate the medical experiments depicted inhis favourite film, but this time with twelve victims sewn ass-to-mouth insteadof three. Oh, did I say sewn? Sorry, I meant stapled. Smothered in blood, poopand sick (although mercifully filmed in black-and-white), this revoltingshowcase of pitiful desperation is as pathetic and incompetent as they come.Y’know, someone really should staple Tom Six’s lips to his own asshole – maybethat will appease the self-adoring moron.

1. “Jack and Jill”

And in the number one spot is hack director Dennis Dugan’smind-numbing 90-minute Dunkin’ Donuts commercial starring Adam Sandler as (getthis, right) his own sister. Yes, running on a grand total of two jokes (theother being that the sister is very annoying), the endlessly excruciating andmind-bogglingly beastly “Jack and Jill” is already worn-out before it reachesthe ten minute mark – still, it powers through, bafflingly hitting lower andlower lows, eventually ending with Al Pacino dancing and singing about how muchhe loves Dunkin’ Donuts (I am not fucking kidding). The story, loose as thefilm’s screw, has Sandler playing Jack, an ad executive whose obnoxious twinsister, Jill (Sandler in drag), stays over for Thanksgiving and never leaves.Cue a lazy display of dreadfully unfunny jokes revolving around Jill’s socialidiocy and cultural ignorance, which stretches from accidentally crushing aShetland pony’s legs to loudly yelling into her phone in a movie theatre (haha, she so grating). Witless, plotless, monotonous and mindless, “Jack andJill” is a film so bad that one suspects Sandler is attempting career suicide –and if he’s not, then God help his sanity.

Endnote: Therules for films eligible for inclusion on this list are exactly the same as statedin the Best of 2011 list.

The Darkest Hour

2011-12-31T02:26:00.000Z

You may remember an American film that was released towardsthe end of 2010 called “Skyline.” It was a science-fiction thriller centred ona small band of sexy teens who discover to their horror that a full-scale alieninvasion is occurring right outside their Los Angeles apartment building. Itwas directed by second-time filmmakers the Brothers Strause and produced with arelatively small budget of $10-20 million. It was also a positively dreadful film filled withwooden acting, crappy dialogue, insipid characters and unsatisfying thrills,but the film’s single saving grace was its use of special effects, which, giventhe limited budget, were rather impressive.

Why am I talking about “Skyline” at the end of 2011? Well, newly released film “TheDarkest Hour” is very similar to “Skyline.” Like “Skyline,” it is also ascience-fiction thriller about an alien invasion, although produced with a slightlybigger budget of $40 million. And it too is filled with wooden acting, crappy dialogue,insipid characters and unsatisfying thrills. Unlike “Skyline,” however, “TheDarkest Hour” does not have nifty special effects to save its skin, and this isbecause the aliens in this film are fucking invisible.

Now, that’s not to say that the film doesn’t contain somespecial effects; this is, after all, a Hollywood alien invasion flick. The aliensthemselves, while invisible for the most part, do on occasion visually manifestthemselves as floating, glowing, CGI pinwheels – how intimidating. And the aliensalso use golden, shining, CGI whips to lasso themselves a human being or two,who are swiftly reduced to piles of ashes – a la Spielberg’s “War of the Worlds”remake – upon physical contact with the transparent extra-terrestrials. Thatlast part may sound rather cool, maybe even awesome, and it is to begin with, butit’s a gimmick that grows very wearisome after the first five or fifteen timesit’s used in the film.

Being hunted by these invaders from outer space are theresidents of Moscow, as well as two American men, a young American lady, ayoung Australian lady and a Swedish prick. The two American men are Sean (Emile Hirsch, “Intothe Wild”) and Ben (Max Minghella, “The Social Network”), two best buddies who travelto Moscow for a business deal that goes a little awry. The American lady andAustralian lady are holidaying BFFs Natalie (Olivia Thirlby, “Juno”) and Anne(Rachael Taylor, “Transformers”), respectively. And the Swedish prick is Skyler(Joel Kinnaman, “Easy Money”), who is Swedish and is a prick.

These five characters are all drinking and laughing in aMoscow night club when suddenly the building's power cuts out. They, along with everyoneelse in the club, swiftly venture to the street outside. What they see ispuzzling: there are ominous balls of light descending from the night sky above.A Russian police officer stupidly approaches one of the lights that has fallento the ground, reaches his baton out and is turned into a pile of ashes. Goodgoing, Russian police force.

Sean, Ben, Natalie, Anne and Skyler quickly discover thatthe mysterious lights are in fact energy-feeding aliens who have come to Earth with the intention of draining our power supply. Together, afterevading a full-blown massacre, they decide to hide in a supply room for four wholedays. Fed up of having to eat out of cans and piss into buckets, they finallycome out to find the streets of Moscow almost entirely deserted, save for theinvisible aliens; these images recall Danny Boyle’s zombie horror “28 DaysLater" – well, if it were a pile of shit and filled with invisible aliens. Our fiveprotagonists also discover that the aliens cannot see through glass (erm,what?) and cause electrical objects to suddenly switch on when close tothem – our protagonists must use this information to evade the intergalacticbeings as they attempt to find the Russian military submarine rumoured to containsurvivors.

There are, at the very least, three major problems with “TheDarkest Hour.” The first is that the script, written by first-time screenwriterJon Spaihts, is not only utterly terrible but also wreaks of the sort of self-satisfiedsmugness that would fit very nicely into a typical Aaron Sorkin script. Spaihtsclearly strives for sharp, crafty, quick-witted dialogue, particularly in thefirst twenty minutes or so, but finds himself falling flat on his self-importantface every single time a character opens their mouth – with such little wit andgrasp of character, this guy is more Aaron Suckin’ than Aaron Sorkin.

The second major problem is that there is not one characterin the entire film whom we are given a single reason to care about. This is a commonproblem that constantly damages films of this sort; the protagonists are scaredand are in serious peril, yet we, as viewers, are left with the ability to feelnothing but indifference towards their fate. In fact, there is only onecharacter out of the five protagonists in “The Darkest Hour” who is given aclear and distinctive personality, and this is the one who is so clearly goingto die at some point that he may as well have a blue-and-red bullseye tattooed on his forehead.

The third major problem is the film’s severe lack of imagination,although I’m sure Mr Spaihts believes he has completely rejuvenated the entire alien invasion subgenre all on his own. Yes, the film is set in Moscow as opposed to abig American city filled with towering skyscrapers and yellow cabs. Yes, thealiens can only be detected when they venture near electrical equipment. Yes,the aliens are almost completely invisible. And yes, they are physically incapableof seeing through a double-glazed window. But that’s all there is to say about “TheDarkest Hour;” everything else is run-of-the-mill alien invasion schlock we sawoccur in “Independence Day,” “Battle: Los Angeles,” “Vanishing on 7^thStreet” and bloody “Skyline” – outside of a few silly gimmicks, there is nothing new ondisplay here.

I do believe that the film’s director, Chris Gorak, hastalent. Gorak made his directorial debut in 2006 with a very intense andgripping doomsday thriller called “Right at Your Door.” What has happened with “TheDarkest Hour,” his second film, is probably just an unfortunate case of a clunkyscript – if so, I trust he shall pick his future projects much more wisely, inparticular avoiding those that include invisible fucking aliens.

3/10

The Top 25 Best Films of 2011

2011-12-30T21:28:00.000Z

I believe 2011 has been a fine year for cinema – one couldargue it hasn’t been a truly great year for the medium, but it has at the veryleast been perfectly adequate. It has been a year filled with surprises – somegood, some bad; same as every year, I suppose. It has been an excellent yearfor animation, though oddly not for Pixar – hand-drawn or computer-generated,most animations released this year were smart, imaginative and beautiful. Ithas been a decent year for big-budget studio blockbusters, some of which had workingbrains and beating hearts, meaning that many (not all) of Hollywood’s boxoffice takings have been well deserved. It has been a tremendous year for indiedramas and comedies – many smaller films produced with miniscule budgets andshown in limited screenings have been met with wide publicity and recognitionamongst casual moviegoers.

It has been a year of memorable stories: we have had astruggling writer time-travelling to 1920s Paris, a silent movie star fadinginto obscurity, a mysterious extra-terrestrial wreaking havoc in a small Ohiotown, a bunch of apes revolting against mankind, a construction workersuffering from apocalyptic visions, a boy wizard battling to the death againsthis evil archnemesis, and thirteen assassins bravely embarking on a suicide missionto stop a murderous psychopath. In 2010, there was one film I 100% believed tobe a masterpiece; in 2011, there are three. So, let’s take a look at my top 25 best films of 2011, a perfectly adequate year for the world of film.

25. “Rise of thePlanet of the Apes”

“Rise of the Planet of the Apes” was the second best prequelof 2011; we shall come to the number one prequel soon. As the slightly dodgytitle suggests, it is a prequel to the 1968 sci-fi masterpiece “Planet of theApes,” which starred Charlton Heston alongside some damn dirty apes. Thisprequel stars James Franco as Will, a scientist, and Andy Serkis as Caesar, adamn dirty ape. Caesar is the son of a lady ape who had experimental drugstested on her in an attempt to increase her intelligence. When the experimentgoes horribly wrong, Will secretly takes baby Caesar home with him and winds upkeeping the little chimp indefinitely. Five years later, and Caesar’sintelligence is increasing rapidly. And when he ends up getting thrown into anape facility after attacking Will’s douchebag neighbour, Caesar begins to plana revolution against the human population alongside his fellow inmates. “Riseof the Planet of the Apes” is a strangely powerful film, in that it makes usroot for a bunch of banana-craving primates who wish to take over the world.This may also be thanks to the awe-inspiring motion-captured performance ofSerkis as the ape who, in the film’s second half, becomes the film’s protagonist.It’s both an engrossing drama and an invigorating blockbuster, and generallyjust a goddamn awesome movie.

24. “Arrietty”

Studio Ghibli is essentially the Japanese Pixar – over theyears, they’ve given us such animated classics as “Princess Mononoke,” “MyNeighbour Totoro” and “Spirited Away.” And while their latest film, “Arrietty,”isn’t quite the masterpiece that these three films undoubtedly are, it’snonetheless a fun, imaginative and colourful piece of old-fashioned animationand fairy-tale storytelling. Based on Mary Norton’s classic book “TheBorrowers,” the film is a fantasy adventure revolving around tiny people calledBorrowers. They live under our floorboards in hiding from us, stealing – sorry,borrowing – our possessions for their everyday needs. But one day, youngBorrower Arrietty (voiced by Saoirse Ronan) is discovered by a human boy,starting an unlikely friendship and arousing suspicion from the snoopyhousemaid, which puts Arrietty’s family in serious danger. Under the gentledirection of Hiromasa Yonebayashi, “Arrietty” is a gorgeously animated familyfilm that is absolutely riveting from start to finish, armed with a heart, souland brain – it also managed to be visually magnificent without the aid of pesky3D.

23. “The Help”

“The Help” deals with a subject we’ve seen in countlessfilms before: the treatment of African Americans by racist white folks duringthe Civil Rights era. What’s different about “The Help,” however, is that ithandles this subject in a comedic manner. Based on Kathryn Stockett’s 2009 bookof the same name, it tells the story of Eugenia “Skeeter” Phelan (played byEmma Stone), a young aspiring journalist living in the supposedly idyllic townof Jackson, Mississippi. There, she witnesses black maids being mistreated bythe rich white families they serve, which gives Skeeter an idea: writing a bookfrom the perspective of “the help;” but the maids are too scared to speak upabout the problems they face. Against all odds, “The Help” is a major success;it faultlessly juggles tear-jerking drama, rib-tickling comedy and a trickysubject matter, all the while presenting striking characters who amuse anddevastate. It also features two powerhouse acting performances, one from ViolaDavis, the other from Octavia Spencer, both of whom play tortured maids –expect an Oscar or two to be handed out here.

22. “Attack the Block”

“Attack the Block” was radio host Joe Cornish’s firstattempt at being a big fancy movie director – turns out he’s not just funny andwitty and ever so charming, but he’s also got some well proper directing skillstoo. The film, which Cornish also wrote, is a science-fictioncomedy-horror-thriller set mostly in an East London tower block. Itsprotagonists are a gang of hooded youths who find themselves at the centre of whatthey believe to be an alien invasion. Together, along with the help of a localdrug dealer and a nurse they mugged earlier that night, they must heroicallydefend their homely tower block from an unstoppable gang of vicious,bloodthirsty extra-terrestrials who fall down from the stars. Jam-packed withplenty of style and a boatload of laughs, “Attack the Block” is a funny, scaryand thrilling British genre flick featuring marvellous special effects and somevery original and interesting aliens – seriously, they’re, like, blacker thanblack and have got glow-in-the-dark fangs and can climb up the sides ofbuildings. They’re well scary too, bro.

21. “The Adventuresof Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn”

“Tintin” creator and author Hergé famously stated thatSteven Spielberg was the one and only director capable of bringing his belovedcharacter to the big screen. Well, Spielberg took on that challenge and provedthat Hergé may very well have been entirely correct: Spielberg’s “Tintin”adaptation was absolutely phenomenal. Filmed using very impressive motioncapture and presented in eye-popping 3D, “The Adventures of Tintin: The Secretof the Unicorn” saw the intrepid journalist, along with his loyal dog Snowy,going on an adventure to discover, as the title suggests, the secret of theUnicorn. On this thrilling journey, Tintin (voiced by Jamie Bell) is kidnapped,held in a cage, meets drunkard Captain Haddock (voiced by Andy Serkis) andcrashes a plane into the middle of a desert – and that’s only the first half ofthe film. Presenting us with mouth-watering visuals, witty writing and nonstopaction, “The Secret of the Unicorn” is an invigorating piece of blockbusterentertainment that more than lives up to its classic source material; it’s alsoone of the few motion-captured films to convince me that the medium reallycould go places.

20. “ArthurChristmas”

“Arthur Christmas” is the owner of two trophies: one forbeing the first Christmas film of 2011 (in the UK, at least; in the US, thatposition belongs to “A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas”) and another forbeing the best animated film of the year (though that’s a tough call). Actingas a collaboration between Sony Animation and Aardman Animation, thiscomputer-animated festive flick saw James McAvoy voicing the eponymous Arthur,the youngest son of Santa Claus. Following another supposedly successfulChristmas Eve, Arthur discovers to his horror that one of the presents fell ofa conveyer belt in the North Pole and thus went undelivered – this meanssomewhere in the world a child will wake up without a present from Santa.Unable to persuade his brother or father to fly back to England to deliver thepresent to its rightful owner, Arthur is forced to go on an adventure withgrumpy Grand-Santa (voiced by Bill Nighy) to hand one last present to onespecial little girl – but will he make it to England before the sun rises onChristmas morning? Funny, sweet, whimsical and exciting, this visuallyextravagant and endlessly imaginative family film proved to be one of the bestChristmas films of recent years; if you can believe it, it’s even better than“Christmas with the Kranks.”

19. “13 Assassins”

“13 Assassins” is the best samurai film since that TomCruise movie where he had a beard – actually, it may very well be even betterthan that film. Directed by controversial filmmaker Takashi Miike, “13Assassins” is a Japanese epic about, well, 13 assassins. These assassins haveassembled together in 1840s Japan to execute the malicious Lord MatsudairaNaritsugu, son of the former Shogun and brother of the current Shogun – withthis status, no one can touch him. But the thirteen assassins are on a quest tochop the raping, murdering Naritsugu to bits with their sharpened swords ofshining steel, and thus restore peace and order to Japan – but Naritsugu won’tcome easy, and he has quite an army of loyal guards defending him. Armed withan unquestionably despicable villain and an endlessly riveting storyline, “13Assassins” is a thrilling, electrifying and gripping piece of action and drama.It starts with a slow burn, building up characters and tension, and thenexplodes into a no-holds-barred action spectacle of blood-stained mayheminvolving bodily dismemberment and the burning of CGI cows – it’s like theopening scene of “Mars Attacks,” but, like, all serious and stuff.

18. “Melancholia”

Lars von Trier’s “Melancholia” is a film of two halves. Thefirst half shows the lavish and luxurious wedding reception of Justine (playedby Kirsten Dunst) and fiancé Michael (played by Alexander Skarsgård) at a fancymansion; the mood at the reception gradually becomes less and less enthusiasticas the night goes on, eventually taking a turn for complete and utter disaster.The second half takes place at the same mansion, where a clinically depressedJustine stays with her sister, Claire (played by Charlotte Gainsbourg), andClaire’s husband, John (played by Kiefer Sutherland), as she recovers. This allhappens as a planet named Melancholia is predicted to collide with the Earthand destroy all life on our pathetic little planet. As its title proudlysuggests, “Melancholia” is a gloomy experience, although what do you expectfrom a Lars von Trier movie about the end of the world? It’s a captivating,albeit rather depressing, apocalyptic drama that gloriously displays Trier’sunique yet undeniable talents as a director. Dunst also gives a remarkablyenchanting performance as a clinically depressed spoiled brat in what isundoubtedly the best performance of her career so far – yes, even better thanher performances in the “Spider-Man” trilogy.

17. “Tinker TailorSoldier Spy”

I’m sure you, dear reader, shall be as shocked as I was whenI learned that English actor/chameleon Gary Oldman has never won, nor beennominated for, an Oscar. I know, it’s positively scandalous! But all that maychange with “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy,” in which Oldman gives the subtlest ofsubtle performances as George Smiley, the tight-lipped spy hunter from John leCarré’s bestselling “Karla” trilogy. Smiley, having just been forced to retirefollowing a major screw-up by somebody else, is asked to return to BritishIntelligence and sniff out a possible mole that may be leaking information tothe villainous Russians. Smiley gets to sniffing, visiting old friends andstealing private documents as he chases down a sneaky, conniving rat who mayvery well turn out be one of his old buddies. Oldman’s captivating performance,along with Tomas Alfredson’s ice-cold direction, makes “Tinker Tailor SoldierSpy” a triumph of a Cold War spy drama with a mystery that engrosses from theopening scene right up to the end credits – but who’s the mole? Well, wait andsee the movie, Mr(s) Impatient.

16. “Take Shelter”

“Take Shelter” makes its viewers question whether or not itsprotagonist is entirely sane. This protagonist is Curtis LaForche (played byMichael Shannon), a construction worker living contentedly with his wife anddaughter in a small Ohio town. Curtis has been suffering from strange visionsof storms lately, sometimes in his dreams, sometimes when he’s walking aboutduring the day. Curtis becomes worried that they might be symptoms ofschizophrenia, but something much more troubling comes to mind: what if they’rea warning of a coming apocalypse? Showcasing a subtle but dedicated performancefrom Shannon as a man who may or may not be losing his mind, as well as apoignant performance from co-star Jessica Chastain as his suffering wife, JeffNichols’ atypical disaster movie makes for overwhelmingly emotional andgripping viewing as we try to figure out whether or not our protagonist is atotal nutcase.

15. “Warrior”

Gavin O’Connor’s “Warrior” features three powerhouseperformances from Joel Edgerton, Tom Hardy and Nick Nolte; they’re some of themost heart-breaking and effective displays of acting I’ve seen in recent years.“Warrior” is a sports drama that gives us a peek into the violent world ofMixed Martial Arts. It tells the story of two estranged brothers (Hardy andEdgerton) who separately decide to enter a Mixed Martial Arts tournament at thesame time, their recovering alcoholic of a father (Nolte) training Hardy’scharacter. The film acts as a mash-up between hard-hitting family drama and amovie about competitive sports, much like “The Fighter” did last year, thoughto lesser effect. And while its plot no doubt contains an inescapably formulaicand predictable ending, “Warrior” is an astonishingly powerful and engagingdrama that holds the title of the one and only film of 2011 to make me cry –I’m not even ashamed to admit it managed to make me burst into tears a grandtotal of three times. They’re brothers, goddammit! It’s beautiful!

14. “Submarine”

Richard Ayoade, who may recognise as super-nerd Moss from“The IT Crowd,” made his directorial debut this year with the funny andtouching indie comedy-drama “Submarine.” The film follows the everyday life of 15-year-old Welsh boy Oliver Tate(played by Craig Roberts), who lives in 1986 Swansea. Oliver has fallen in lovewith fellow classmate Jordana (played by Yasmin Paige), a straight-talkingtrouble-maker with whom Oliver intends to lose his virginity. Meanwhile, Oliversuspects that his parents’ sex life is going downhill, worsened by the presenceof his mother’s kooky ex-boyfriend, a new age guru with a mullet, who has justmoved in next door; the nosy Oliver is determined to sort out the situation allby himself. Made with a low budget and an inspired directorial vision, “Submarine”is an effectively quirky coming-of-age tale in the vein of American filmmakerWes Anderson; it’s a very creative and very promising directorial debut fromAyoade, who will hopefully soon be rid of the title “Moss from “The IT Crowd”.”

13. “Super 8”

It’s never been much of a secret that J. J. Abrams, a verytalented movie-maker, is a hardcore fan of Steven Spielberg, but it wasn’tuntil Abrams’ third feature film, the wonderful “Super 8,” that he fullyembraced his love of the man – imagine his delight when Spielberg stepped onboard the project as a producer. Like some of Spielberg’s most beloved featurefilms, “Super 8” is a small-town science-fiction flick. It is set in thefictional Ohio town of Lillian, where a horrible train crash sets in motion abizarre series of events: local dogs go missing, people disappear and householditems are seemingly being stolen. The locals are baffled; but maybe the answerto the mystery lies within footage of the train crash captured by chance by agroup of young aspiring filmmakers. “Super 8” is a magical film. It is a filmmade with passion and a rare inspired vision. It is exciting, moving andentirely fascinating for its whole length. It works not only as a tribute to alegendary filmmaker but also as a god damn awesome piece of sci-fimovie-making. I’d say it’s “super great,” but that would be cheap of me – itis, in fact, E.T.-riffic.

12. “X-Men: FirstClass”

After the dire “X-Men: The Last Stand” and the mind-numbing“X-Men Origins: Wolverine,” British director Matthew Vaughn brought thecash-guzzling “X-Men” franchise back to more-than-fine form with this firstclass prequel starring James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender. Set in the groovy‘60s against the backdrop of the Cuban missile crisis, “First Class” saw thebeginnings of the original X-Men, a team of super-powered mutants lead bymind-reader Charles Xavier (aka Professor X) and metal-manipulator Erik Lensherr(aka Magneto). In their first adventure, the X-Men are up against thevillainous Sebastian Shaw (played by Kevin Bacon), aspiring world dominator andkiller of Magneto’s mummy. While there are admittedly some clumsy continuityerrors when tying itself up to the previous films, “First Class” is nonethelessan enthralling and exhilarating piece of superhero entertainment that packs injust as much drama and emotion as action and special effects. It’s not onlyfirst class, it’s X-cellent. Sorry.

11. “Bridesmaids”

Easily seizing the title of the funniest film of 2011,“Bridesmaids” is a side-splitting and foul-mouthed comedy revolving around thetrials and tribulations of being a maid of honour. Thirtysomething Annie(played by Kristen Wiig) is single, works in a jewellery store and is in asexual relationship with a self-absorbed prick. Much to her horror, Annie’sbest friend, Lillian (played by Maya Rudolph), gets engaged and asks Annie tobe her maid of honour. What follows is an increasingly disastrous series ofevents involving food poisoning, drunken disorderliness and public freak-outsas the plans for the big day itself are carefully assembled by a misfit team ofbridesmaids. Director Paul Fieg’s very R-rated comedy is a no-holds-barred bigball of hilariousness that stands tall with such recent adult comedies as“Knocked Up” and “The 40-Year-Old Virgin;” it’s also absolutely essentialviewing for anyone wishing to watch Melissa McCarthy taking a dump in a sink –I’m sure there are plenty of you out there.

10. “We Need to TalkAbout Kevin”

So, let’s talk about Kevin: “We Need to Talk About Kevin” isa drama, a thriller and a horror; it is an emotional, intense and terrifyingpiece of arthouse cinema. It is directed and co-written by Scottish filmmakerLynne Ramsay; it is her third film and her first to be set outside of Scotland.Based on Lionel Shriver’s celebrated novel of the same name, it stars TildaSwinton as Eva Khatchadourian, an American wife and mother. Her eldest son,Kevin, has done something horrific; I don’t think I’ll tell of the specifics ofhis actions. Eva now unfairly has to deal with the consequences and backlash ofwhat Kevin has done; we also flashback to when Kevin was born, as he grew upand as Eva began to suspect there was something very wrong with her firstborn. “WeNeed to Talk About Kevin” is dark and disturbing, and deliberately so. Itfeatures a powerful performance from Swinton as an exhausted and torturedmother; Ezra Miller is magnificently menacing as troubled teenager Kevin.Ramsay’s third film is an all-consuming, stylishly directed and tremendously well-acteddomestic drama certainly worthy of being talked about – it is also the bestform of cinematic birth control since Richard Donner’s “The Omen.”

9. “Tyrannosaur”

As one would expect from any British kitchen sink drama,“Tyrannosaur” is dark, depressing and unflinchingly violent – it may also holdthe record for most utterances of the dreaded C word in a 2011 film. It starsenormously talented Scottish actor Peter Mullan as Joseph, a short-tempereddrunken brute who, in the opening scene, we watch kick his own dog to death –well, that’s one way to grab an audience’s attention. Eager to change hisabusive ways, Joseph seeks comfort in a seemingly happy and contented localChristian lady (Olivia Colman), whose dark and devastating secret threatens torespark Joseph’s anger and brutality. The overwhelmingly grim and relentlesslydisturbing “Tyrannosaur” (which unfortunately contains not a single dinosaur)was English actor Paddy Considine’s directorial debut; it turns out Considineis as talented a director as he is an actor, if not more so. Showcasing two standoutperformances in the form of Mullan and, more surprisingly, comedy actress Colman,this harrowing, bleak and heart-breaking Brit-flick absorbs from beginning toend and haunts long after the end credits have finished rolling. I think it’sfair to say, though, that it’s most definitely not everyone’s cup of tea –especially dog people.

8. “Hugo”

Martin Scorsese’s passionate tribute to the old days ofsilent cinema was not only his first film to be released in 3D, but also hisfirst proper all-out family flick – yes, apparently “Goodfellas” isn’tconsidered fun for all the family. Ah well. “Hugo,” based on Brian Selznick‘sbestselling children’s novel “The Invention of Hugo Cabret,” told the story ofan orphan boy who lives between the walls of a Paris railway station in theearly 1920s. Young Hugo spends his days spying on passengers, stealing food,running away from the station inspector and fixing a rusty automaton that mayhave the ability to write; but what does the station’s toy shop owner know aboutthe broken automaton? Magical, whimsical and utterly enchanting, Scorsese’sfamily-film debut just goes to show how versatile a filmmaker he really is –see, people, he doesn’t just do sweary, gritty gangster flicks with Robert De Niro;he does sweet and innocent family flicks too.

7. “The Skin I LiveIn”

Probably the most disturbing film of 2011, writer-directorPedro Almodóvar’s dark and deranged Spanish film “The Skin I Live In” is partdrama and part body-horror. Based on the novel “Tarantula” by Thierry Jonquet,it stars Antonio Banderas as Robert Ledgard, a successful surgeon obsessed withcreating an impenetrable synthetic skin. Within his home he has a captive, astrange lady on whom he is surgically experimenting. He keeps her in a lockedroom and tries out his synthetic skins on her, essentially using her as a humanguinea pig; but something is going on between these two that is much moresinister and hair-raising than one might expect, revealed through severalflashbacks that unmask a horrifying, mortifying secret – it’ll make you puke,in a good way.

6. “Harry Potter andthe Deathly Hallows – Part 2”

Part two of the epic conclusion to the beloved “HarryPotter” film saga proved not only to be a more than satisfying end to theseries, but also the very best of the lot (well, at least according to me).“Deathly Hallows – Part 2,” which was released in 3D, continued young wizardsHarry, Ron and Hermione’s noble quest to destroy all the remaining parts of thecallous Lord Voldemort’s evil soul. This leads them to the familiar setting ofHogwarts School, which they must heroically defend alongside their classmatesand teachers from the enormous army of Death Eaters that Lord Voldemort hasassembled; but who will be getting out of this battle alive – The Boy Who Livedor He Who Must Not Be Named? Fast, furious and tremendously exciting, “DeathlyHallows – Part 2” was one of the most epically epic films of 2011, packing inspectacular action, blockbuster thrills and hard-hitting drama worthy ofshedding a few tears over – I’m not crying, I just poked myself in the eye withmy 3D glasses.

5. "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo"

David Fincher’s “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” instantly grabsits audience with an eye-popping hallucinogenic nightmare of an opening titlessequence and refuses to let go. This was Fincher’s redo of Niels Arden Oplev’s2009 Swedish film of the same name, both films based on Stieg Larsson’sbestselling novel, which was published as “Men Who Hate Women” in Sweden. It starsDaniel Craig as Mikael Blomkvist, a recently disgraced investigative journalistwho is contacted by Henrik Vanger (played by Christopher Plummer), an elderlymillionaire who wishes for Mikael to solve the 40-year-old disappearance of hisbeloved niece, Harriet. Mikael gets to investigating and soon learns of LisbethSalander (played by Rooney Mara), the troubled and tortured computer hacker whoperformed a background check on Mikael for Henrik. Adamant to not have his namedisgraced again, Mikael requests the aid of Lisbeth’s research skills; soonenough, the two are working together and find themselves on the hunt for akiller of women. Bettering the original film and beautifully translating the world-renownednovel onto the big screen, the brutally violent “The Girl with the DragonTattoo” is a haunting and hypnotic experience that showcases a career-best performancefrom Craig and a breathtaking performance from up-and-comer Mara that isimpossible to take one’s eyes off of.

4. “Drive”

Essentially “The Transporter” with a brain, a heart and asexy Ryan Gosling, “Drive” is Nicolas Winding Refn’s noirish tale of a namelessstunt driver who finds himself in the bad books of some violent gangsters. Atnight, The Driver works as a getaway driver for crooks and thieves; he’s verygood at his job and very strict about his routine. But one day, a job goesoutrageously wrong, leaving him with a boatload of cash belonging to anunscrupulous mobster who’ll do anything to get his money back. Featuringcommanding performances from Gosling as the tight-lipped hero and Albert Brooksas the brutal baddie, “Drive” is an immensely absorbing and effortlessly coolAmerican crime-drama, aided by Refn’s fearlessly stylish direction and an ‘80ssoundtrack that sounds like it was hand-crafted by The Lord himself – Jesus isinto synthesiser beats, apparently.

3. “A Separation”

Here’s a film only the nerdiest of film nerds will haveheard about. Written and directed by Asghar Farhadi, “A Separation” is anIranian domestic drama about a potentially broken middle-class family. It starsLeila Hatami and Peyman Maadi as Simin and Nader, respectively. Simin and Naderhave been married for fourteen years, have an eleven-year-old daughter namedTermeh (played by Sarina Farhadi) and wish to have a divorce. This is becauseSimin wants to flee from Iran and live in Europe with her husband and daughterwhile Naader is adamant that he stay in Iran to take care of his elderlyfather, who suffers from Alzheimer’s disease. The husband and wife unofficiallyseparate, meaning someone must take care of Nader’s father while Nader is atwork; Nader decides to hire the deeply religious and five-months-pregnantRazieh (played by Sareh Bayat), which sets in motion a disastrous, dramatic andmorally complex chain of events. Exploring several intriguing themes such asreligion, deception, responsibility and family, “A Separation” is one of themost effortlessly compelling dramas I’ve seen in yonks; its beautifully writtenscript, intimate on-screen performances and stunningly realistic charactersalso help to make it tremendously accessible for “mainstream audiences” – yes,I mean you, you gormless clowns. I jest, I jest.

2. “The Tree of Life”

It’s difficult to describe the experience that is “The Treeof Life;” it’s such an original, ambitious and deliberately unique piece offilmmaking that one feels a few brief words of description wouldn’t do the filmjustice. Nonetheless, in an attempt to sum it up, I’d have to say it’sbeautiful, mesmerising, uncompromisingly epic in scale, utterly stunning, oftenjaw-dropping, sometimes whimsical, sometimes haunting and never-endinglybreath-taking; that sold you on it? Essentially, it’s a combination of a DavidAttenborough nature documentary and a family drama; one second it’s taking usthrough the origins of the universe and the next we’re watching Brad Pittshowing his son how to fight. There’shardly any dialogue, much of the film’s sound consisting of wonderfulorchestral music including a score by Alexandre Desplat. The film is mostly avisual experience, the cinematography by Emmanuel Lubezki a spectacular feastfor the eyes to behold. While some may find the film pretentious, tedious andboring (it actually got booed by many critics at its premiere at the CannesFilm Festival), I myself found it beautiful, enriching and absolutelyfascinating. So, there!

1. “The Artist”

Relentlessly entertaining and practically faultless, “TheArtist” is the sort of film that reminds us why we love going to the movies.Writer-director Michael Hazanavicius’ film is one that is about movies. It is afilm about the death of silent film and the rise of the “talkies” in the late‘20s and early ‘30s. The film, rather notably, is itself a silent film – it ispresented in stunning black-and-white and its audio is muted; well, for themost part. Its story is a beautiful one; it tells of a man’s catastrophic fallfrom grace as a result of his pride-fuelled stubbornness. This man is GeorgeValentin (played magnificently by Jean Dujardin), a dashingly handsome andwidely beloved Hollywood star of the silent era. Cocky and proud, Georgeconfidently laughs in the face of the oncoming talky movement and refuses toparticipate in the medium; unfortunately, this ends up costing him his career,resulting in his name becoming more and more obscure as the talkies take overtheatres everywhere. Meanwhile, a no-name extra (played by the exquisite BéréniceBejo) with whom George was once infatuated is rapidly becoming a major star ofthe talky movement, and has taken notice of George’s slip into depression anddesperation. Rarely does a film capture as much of a sense of joy and wonder as“The Artist” does; Hazanavicius’ film is an absolute pleasure to watch and ajoy to become absorbed in. It is a wonderfully acted, utterly enchanting andinsanely charming piece of cinema that is passionate, riveting and, perhapsmost importantly of all, accessible. I’d say expect the Academy overlords tomake a big noise over this silent film; it more than deserves it.

Endnote: Thegeneral rule for films eligible for inclusion on this list is this: any filmeligible for consideration by the 84^th Academy Awards – so, any ofthese 265 films – is 100% eligible for inclusion on this list. The eligibilityfor inclusion on this list of a film released in either the UK or the US in theyear of 2011 that, for whatever reason, was not eligible for consideration bythe 84^th Academy Awards shall be decided by me. For example, I’vedecided not to include the wonderful “The King’s Speech” (which was released inthe UK in January 2011) as it was more the talk of last year than this year (itwon the big Oscar, remember). And hey, this is my blog, I can do whatever thehell I want.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

2011-12-30T01:47:00.002Z

I had decidedly mixed feelings about Guy Ritchie’s 2009adaptation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s classic series of novels featuring acertain master detective called Sherlock Holmes. On the one hand, I found thefilm to be a mostly enjoyable romp featuring a fun and charismatic centralperformance from Robert Downey, Jr., yet on the other I was frequently rollingmy eyes at Ritchie’s bullet-time visuals and found myself disinterested in theplot far too often. Its sequel, “A Game of Shadows” is a different story; thistime the plot is fully engaging from start to finish, contains nary a dullmoment, and the bullet-time visuals, while still utilised a little too often, areslightly less grating.

“A Game of Shadows” sees Downey, Jr. proudly returning as thedefinitive detective of British literature, once again playing Holmes with aknowing eccentricity as he captures crooks, hunts for clues and throws aninnocent lady off a moving train – it’s to save her life, I assure you. JudeLaw also returns as Dr. Watson, Holmes’ straight-faced partner in mystery-solving and criminal-catching. However, Holmes and Watson’slong-lasting partnership is under threat, as Watson is due to be married to thebeautiful Mary (Kelly Reilly, “Eden Lake”) – ever the selfish type, Holmes doesnot like this one little bit.

Together, Holmes and Watson must face their ultimate foe:Professor James Moriarty (Jared Harris, “Mad Men”), a cold and callous lover ofchess and killer of innocents. Using his yet-unchallenged skills of detection, Holmesdiscovers that Moriarty is up to some dodgy business involving assassinationattempts and acts of terrorism; it soon transpires that Moriarty has evil plansto spark war in Europe, meaning Holmes and Watson must work together to preventthe collapse of western civilisation. “No pressure,” comments Holmes. Indeed.

“A Game of Shadows” is much bigger in scope than its predecessor; I suspect this was a very deliberate ploy by Ritchie and hiswriters to make the film feel more epic and grand like all sequels must be, althoughI must say it’s a ploy that works wholly in the film’s favour. While the first “SherlockHolmes” was based entirely in the gorgeous setting of Victorian London, “A Gameof Shadows” takes us on an adventure to France, Germany and finally snowySwitzerland for the nail-biting climax. What with all this casual continent-hopping,one almost feels as if the film is yet another “Bond” movie, albeit set in the late19^th century and featuring homoerotic undertones – also, I’m sure ProfessorJames Moriarty would prove himself to be a worthy adversary of 007.

Indeed, Moriarty is a magnificent villain, much strongerthan the villainous Lord Blackwood from the previous film, that’s for sure. As with every appearance the character has made in print, TV and film, Moriarty is shown here to beHolmes’ equal; the two are intelligent, cunning and deep-thinking men who treateach other with a whole heap of mutual respect – they battle not with fists butwith words, and also chess pieces. Harris plays Moriraty with a shark-eyed, stone-faced,cold-hearted menace that chills one to the bone, yet captivates entirely; he’sa wonderful actor and fits the role perfectly.

Downey, Jr.’s scenery-chewing performance is just ascharming and appealing as it was in the previous film; he’s given Holmes aneffectively unique personality, and makes “A Game of Shadows” very much his filmand no one else’s. Saying that, Law makes for a splendid sidekick, this time given much more work to do, with Watson actuallygetting his hands dirty during the film’s wide assortment of action set-pieces.The constant banter between Holmes and Watson is also very entertaining,written with a high level of wit and humour; they’re an amusing pair and also havea very convincing “bromance” going on between them.

I mentioned the action set-pieces there; the film has a fair collection of them scattered throughout its 120-minute length, which may workonly to annoy purist fans of Conan Doyle’s work. However, for those aware of the fact that Ritchie’s films are reinterpretations of the original booksrather than authentic adaptations, these very cool and unashamedly stylishslices of over-the-top action are rather fun to behold. The most enjoyableset-piece is perhaps the one that takes place on a train during Watson’shoneymoon – at one point, Holmes and Watson end up lying on the floor of a carriage as bullets fly overhead, all while Holmes is dressed in women’s clothing, his facesmothered with mascara and lipstick as he chews away on his trusty pipe. Brilliant.

“A Game of Shadows” is a substantially better film than its middling predecessor; it features a better villain, a better storyline and betterset-pieces. It’s more exciting, more thrilling, more engaging and thus a moresatisfying movie-going experience. And while it may very much piss off ConanDoyle purists, it works perfectly fine on its own terms as a big, silly,overblown pantomime – take notes, "Pirates of the Caribbean" franchise.

7/10

Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked

2011-12-22T23:21:00.000Z

I’d say “Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked” is the bestof the series so far; don’t get your hopes up, though, suffering parents – it’sstill a load of old poppycock. I should make it clear that by “best” I mean“most bearable,” as in “least likely to make you want to stick a screwdriver inyour ear canal” – I suppose this is the most you could possibly hope for out ofa family-friendly film franchise about all singing, all dancing,computer-generated chipmunks. Now, I’m not saying you won’t ever have thedesire to take a little stab or two at your poor, suffering eardrums whilstenduring “Chipwrecked” (you very well could and probably will), I’m just sayingthe desire to self-mutilate may not crop up quite as much as you may anticipate– maybe only every ten or fifteen minutes will you be eyeing your trusty screwdriver.

This second squeakquel sees the all singing, all dancing CGIcritters becoming hopelessly and helplessly stranded on a remote tropicalisland – well, that’s a pretty good start. This is following an unfortunate paraglidingincident on the grand cruise ship that was supposed to take the chipmunks andchipettes to the International Music Awards. Instead, they’re starving to deathand slowly losing their tiny little minds on an uninhabited island in themiddle of nowhere, yet still they sing their crushable little lungs out –hooray!

Meanwhile, the chipmunks’ human owner/companion/whateverDave (Jason Lee, “My Name is Earl”) has, unbeknownst to the chipmunks, becomestranded on the other side of the same island after attempting to find hisfurry friends. Joining him on his search for the “chipwrecked” chipmunks is thepreviously villainous Ian (David Cross, “Megamind”), who spends the entire moviedressed in a pelican costume – looks like someone managed to majorly piss offthe writers, eh, Cross?

What this rather unimaginative plot means is that thechipmunks spend much of the film on their own, i.e. clunky human-chipmunkinteraction is kept to a minimum; this is a merciful plus. You see, it’s thescenes featuring the chipmunks and the chipmunks alone that are the mostbearable; you’d think it’d be the opposite, but badly written dialogue meansthat any and all scenes featuring living, breathing human beings are irritatinglyunnatural – with computer-animated rodents, this is not so much of a problem.Plus, poor Jason Lee and David Cross, two very talented comedic actors, are littlemore than pictures of disinterest and embarrassment by this point – they nolonger give a squeak, I suppose you could say.

In all honesty, I don’t really mind the chipmunk characters;they’re amusing enough and the original three at least have notable personalities.We have high-spirited leader Alvin (voiced by Justin Long), bespectacled brainboxSimon (voiced by Matthew Gray Gubler) and chubby doofus Theodore (voiced by JesseMcCartney). We also have the Chipettes, the three female chipmunks introducedin 2009’s “squeakquel.” These are high-spirited leader Brittany (voiced by ChristinaApplegate), bespectacled brainbox Jeanette (voiced by Anna Faris) and chubbydoofus Eleanor (voiced by Amy Poehler) – they’re essentially what the originalchipmunks would look like if they were to each undergo a sex change.

None of the uselessly A-list voice-actors do any of thesinging, of course; that’s left to the professionals. The singing isnear-constant, providing pointless musical interludes as the chipmunks belt outall the current, soon-to-be-forgotten pop tunes in their squeaky little voices,sometimes in acapella, sometimes with the support of the original music. Wehave everything from Lady Gaga’s “Bad Romance” to Lady Gaga’s “Born This Way,”as well as a tremendously witty reworking of a Willow Smith song: “Whip My TailBack and Forth.” The soundtrack shall sell well, I assume, and drive parents upthe friggin’ wall.

As well as a barrage of pop tunes, we have a never-endingslew of pop culture references. There’s a nudge to Robert Zemeckis’ “Cast Away:”Zoe (Jenny Slate), a crazy castaway whom the chipmunks encounter, has several friendsin the form of footballs with faces painted on. There’s a nudge to WilliamGolding’s classic book “Lord of the Flies:” Simon uses the lens of his glassesto light a fire (though I suspect this will go over the heads of many). And thenthere’s a very outdated nudge to Peter Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings” trilogy: atone point, Eleanor, while holding a mango she finds, cries out, “My preciousss”in the unmistakable style of Gollum. Now that’s comedy!

Speaking of comedy, this film has none, or at least none inthe funny section. It lazily strives for funniness and never quite manages toreach it, resulting in a wholly laughless affair that suffers from the belief thatthe sight and sound of singing, dancing, squeaky-voiced chipmunks is enough toentertain and distract an audience for 80 minutes; I assure you, dearfilmmakers, it most certainly is not, especially when we’ve already endured ittwo times before.

Look, if you, for whatever reason, found any enjoyment in eitherof this film’s predecessors, then you may once again find enjoyment in “Chipwrecked.”For those of you who didn’t, I’d advise you to avoid “Chipwrecked” as if itwere a rabies-infected chipmunk. As predicted by most, it’s clinically hollow-minded,painstakingly unfunny and a laborious chore to sit through. Most people overthe age of five shall gain absolutely nothing from it; those under the age offive (i.e. stupid kids) will have a whale of a time.

4/10

Jack and Jill

2011-12-20T17:07:00.000Z

Two years ago, Adam Sandler starred in writer-director JuddApatow’s rib-tickling comedy-drama “Funny People.” In “Funny People,” Sandlerplayed a successful fortysomething comedian who had sold himself out to theHollywood system and was now starring in hopelessly dumb, schlocky comedies;for example, one film that was briefly shown had Sandler’s character playing ahideous man-baby (a baby boy with the head of a fully-grown male). Obviously, thiswas intended by Apatow to be a mockery of the idiotic, big-budget studiocomedies Hollywood is known to churn out nowadays; it was a sharp, albeitsimple, piece of satire heightened by the involvement of Sandler, who in thereal world had also latched onto crappy comedies of this sort.

However, it seems Sandler is determined to become a parodyof himself not only on the big screen but also in real life. You see, his latestmovie, “Jack and Jill,” is a film so bad, so stupid and so utterly insultingthat it’s almost as if one of the fake movies from “Funny People” burst outfrom the screen, landed in the real world and somehow managed to gain a widetheatrical release for mass public consumption; the fact that this is not thecase – i.e. a crew of professional filmmakers actually made this film – isabsolutely horrifying.

“Jack and Jill” is yet another movie – scratch that, product– from Sandler’s very own production company, Happy Madison Productions. Italso marks the seventh collaboration between Sandler and his usual director,Dennis Dugan, who together have given us such unforgettable comedy classics as“Grown Ups,” “I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry” and “You Don’t Mess with theZohan.” If that’s not an indication to avoid this film at all costs, I don’tknow what is.

Their latest film, another comedy, contains one joke; thisjoke is that Adam Sandler is playing his own sister. Actually, hold the phone,the film has two jokes: Adam Sandler is playing his own sister, and the sisteris very annoying. These two jokes, thin as they may be, are stretched out waybeyond their limitations to 90 painful minutes of mind-numbing “comedy,” muchmore than the two to three minutes they deserve on a bad episode of SaturdayNight Live – indeed, Sandler’s old SNL buddies all get their own cameos in thefilm, including David Spade, who plays a much more convincing woman in the filmthan Sandler.

The plot, if you can call it that, is as follows. Jack(Sandler) has a twin sister named Jill (Sandler in a dress and wig and puttingon a lady voice, LOL). Jill flies all the way to Jack’s ridiculously fancyhouse for Thanksgiving. Jack doesn’t like Jill. Jill is very annoying. Jilldoes stupid things that annoy Jack. Jill stays at Jack’s house longer than sheintended on. Jack becomes mad. Jillaccidentally becomes romantically involved with Al Pacino (yes, Al Pacino from “TheGodfather”), with whom Jack wishes to do a business deal. Jack decides to keepthem together until the deal is done, but Jill, for some strange reason,doesn’t want to go out with Al Pacino. Jack becomes mad. Jill continues to beannoying. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Throughout these 90 minutes of pitiless torture, we watch asJack becomes increasingly frustrated with Jill’s behaviour, which stretchesfrom social idiocy (talking on her mobile phone in a movie theatre) to culturalignorance (adamant that “It’s a Wonderful Life” is not called “It’s a WonderfulLife”). This concept has worked in films before – for instance, there’s the hysterical1991 Frank Oz-directed comedy “What About Bob?” in which an egotistical psychiatristis driven mad by the actions of one of his patients, a lovable, accident-prone andincessantly intrusive goof who is a very entertaining and genuinely hilariouscharacter.

This is opposed to “Jack and Jill,” throughout which we, asan audience, are as frustrated by Jill’s behaviour as Jack is; the character ofJill is not likable, funny or entertaining, instead obnoxious as hell,tediously unfunny and absolutely insufferable to watch. We are not entertainedby Jill; we are irritated by her, and every second she spends on-screen is asecond we feel we could spend doing something much more productive – clubbingbaby seals, for example.

The film also manages to be incredibly insulting to itsaudience. For starters, the comedy on display is deplorable bottom-of-the-barrelkind of stuff, chock-a-block with witless, brain-dead humour that probablywouldn’t even appeal to your average three-year-old. For example, we have anold Mexican lady getting thwacked in the face (which occurs twice in the samescene), a Shetland pony having its legs crushed under the weight of Jill (whichdoesn’t make much sense, as Jill really isn’t very fat, but hey, who cares?),Jack’s gardener being a Mexican who constantly jokes about being Mexican (LOL,he’s Mexican), and the always-reliable sound of characters passing gas (Icounted this occurring 11 times throughout the film). If I were an Adam Sandlerfan, I’m sure I’d feel insulted that Sandler felt this was what I wanted out ofa comedy; even as a non-fan, I still felt insulted.

And then there’s the amusingly unsubtle product placementthat constantly pops up on-screen, with the film starting and ending with twofull-length commercials (one for Pepto-Bismol, the other for Dunkin’ Donuts).This is because the character of Jack rather conveniently works as an advertisingexecutive, and part of the plot of the film is that he wants Al Pacino to do acommercial for Dunkin’ Donuts (because “Dunk-A-Chino,” one of the company’s new products, sounds like “AlPacino”). Also, if you go and see this “film” (though I don’t know why youwould) look out for the scene in which Jack and Jill go to the cinema togetherand point their snacks in such a direction that the Coca Cola logos printed on thepackaging are in the perfect position for the camera to see; you shouldn’treally miss it, as director Dennis Dugan makes sure you don’t.

I’m hesitant to even call “Jack and Jill” a film; I see itmore as a 90-minute Dunkin’ Donuts commercial consisting entirely of a seriesof unfunny comedic events revolving around exasperating recurring charactersbereft of any sense of personality or motivation. Nonetheless, it has receiveda theatrical release and will no doubt earn a hefty sum of money, undeserved asevery penny it earns may be. As a reviewer, all I can do is warn you not to seethe film, which, at this point at least, stands as the worst and laziest filmof 2011; I’d also like to point out that I found it more unbearable than “TheHuman Centipede 2 (Full Sequence).” Anyway, I have to go as I’m off to get myselfsome Dunkin’ Donuts and a swig of Coca Cola, or, perhaps more appropriately,some Pepto-Bismol.

0/10

The Artist

2011-12-16T20:37:00.001Z

Before being struck by the on-going reign of the ear-treatingtalkies, silent cinema was the pinnacle of popular entertainment in the 1910sand 1920s. Silent films sent audiences on spellbinding adventures, told themenchanting stories, made them laugh and gasp, gave them heroes, villains andcomedy characters, some of whom remain iconic even a century later, all achievedwithout the audible utterance of a single word. Michael Hazanavicius’ “TheArtist” pays tribute to this era not just by being about silent films, but byactually being one of them.

The film, a long-time ambition of the French filmmaker, isfilmed entirely in gorgeous black-and-white and presented in the old-schoolbox-shaped aspect ratio. About 99% of its audio and dialogue is entirely muted;any necessary dialogue is presented on-screen via old-fashioned intertitles. Theonly consistent sound to emit from the film is the lavishly enchanting orchestralscore by Ludovic Bource that is reminiscent of silent cinema’s usual scores.

As such, the film presents itself as if it actually sprungfrom the ‘10s or ‘20s, though not as if we are watching it in the modern day;that would mean the image would be scratched and disfigured. Instead, the imageis crisp and sharp, meaning it is as if we, the audience, are an audience fromthe ‘10s or ‘20s, watching the latest silent picture in a grand theatre, all dressedup fancy and whatnot, in collective awe of the film’s magical majesty – it transportsus back to the era of silent cinema, and that, in and of itself, is magical.

The story itself is about silent cinema, or more so thedeath of silent cinema. Its star is George Valentin, played by a veryexpressive French actor named Jean Dujardin (“OSS 117: Nest of Spies”). Georgeis a prominent star of silent cinema in 1927; he stars in action/adventurefilms, in which he always plays the handsome, dashing hero with a winning grinand roguish charm. He’s beloved by worldwide fans, most of whom seem to besquealing ladies; George, a helplessly proud and cocky man, loves the constantattention and adoration he receives.

Little does George know that the era of silent cinema is comingto its end, giving way to the revolution of the talkies; Hollywood’s Golden Agedoth approach. Stubborn, George refuses to have anything to do with the supposedlygimmicky movement and decides to remain an actor of silent films. This is a decisionthat ends up costing him his career; George fades ever more into obscurity asthe talkies take over theatres – George Valentin is yesterday’s news.

Meanwhile, Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo, “A Knight’s Tale”)is becoming an international star of talky cinema. Famed for her carefullydrawn beauty spot, the young and beautiful starlet once briefly starredalongside George in one of his movies; she acted as an extra with whom George’scharacter briefly dances on a dance floor – George became captivated, maybeinfatuated, by Peppy during the shoot, resulting in several retakes of the sequence. Now Peppy is today’s news, anddown-in-the-dumps George must watch as this no-name extra becomes the celebratedstar he once was – understandably, he begins to slip into depression.

This is a beautiful story, something cinema lacks nowadays –how apt. It is a story of pride, fame, love and tenacity. It shows how onereacts when one loses one’s glory. It shows the challenges that an actor mustface once they become irrelevant and forgotten to the public. One dreamsequence illustrates this perfectly: George, unable to speak, finds himselfsurrounded by everyday sounds and voices, yet he himself cannot utter a singlesyllable; it is a sequence that portrays George’s sense of isolation andirrelevance, or at least his fear of it; it also portrays George’s inability toaccept that the world around him is changing, whether he likes it or not – itis a powerful and commanding sequence in a powerful and commanding movie.

This is a movie featuring wonderful acting. We have twomarvellous leads in the form of Dujardin and Bejo, two very talented Frenchactors whose talents perfectly fit the silent medium. Together, they find abalance between the iconic pantomime style of old-school silent acting(necessary due to the actors’ inability to emote via dialogue) and more subtle,modern-day acting. The result is stupendous; Dujardin and Bejo have atremendously electrifying and natural chemistry together. Both giveperformances that are endearing, heartfelt and filled with such a strong senseof character and motivation – it’s astonishing that they achieve this withoutus ever having to hear either of their voices.

With “The Artist,” writer-director Michael Hazanavicius hascrafted a magnificent piece of feel-good cinema. It gives us an endearingromance that we wish shall succeed in the end. It gives us enchantingcharacters who amuse, delight and absorb us. It gives us a powerful andexpertly handled story that moves, astonishes and captivates us; we actuallycare about how this story shall end, and are satisfied with how it ends. It isone of the most effortlessly charming films I have seen in recent years, andalso one of the best.

10/10

The Thing

2011-12-06T00:38:00.001Z

In John Carpenter’s ground-breaking 1982 monster moviemasterpiece “The Thing,” the monster at the centre of the story is an imitator.It is an abominable creature from outer space that can absorb and flawlesslyimitate any life form it so pleases; it can then walk around in the life form’sskin without anyone noticing a Thing. It may look like the life form and it mayact like the life form, but it is not the life form; it is a hollow shell ofwhat once was. Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.’s newly released prequel to “TheThing” is, rather ironically, exactly this – one could even suspect this was a deliberateact by the filmmakers.

This prequel, arriving almost thirty years after itslegendary predecessor, is an imitator. It is a carbon copy of its masterfuloriginal in almost every way; the plot is the same, the setting is the same andthe structure of the story is point-for-point exactly the same. But it is notthe same; unlike Carpenter’s version and like its monster, it is empty inside,with very little to be said for it in terms of originality. It is a copy, animitation if you will, and nothing more.

With his logic, I suppose one should actually be calling ita remake; but no, the filmmakers seem adamant that it is a prequel and not aremake, in spite of it replicating its predecessor at almost every single step.Yes, it ties itself up with the beginning of the original with a scene thatplays during the end credits, but take away this sequence and what you’ve gotis a film that could have very easily been marketed as a remake and nobodywould have batted an eyelid when actually watching the film.

You may remember seeing at the beginning of Carpenter’sversion two Norwegian men frantically chasing after and shooting at a dog that soon turnsout to be the dreaded Thing in canine disguise. Well, this prequel sets out totell the story of how this event transpired, and of what precisely happened at thedeserted Norwegian base seemingly attacked by the Thing – it turns out thatpretty much exactly the same circumstances we witnessed occur in the first filmoccurred here too.

The story begins in the middle of Antarctica, where threeNorwegian scientists discover a spaceship buried below the ice, as well as whatseems to be an alien life form also encased in ice. Kate Lloyd (Mary ElizabethWinstead, “Final Destination 3”), a palaeontologist, is requested to fly toAntarctica and aid in a team’s mission to find out what the hell this thing is(spoiler: it turns out it’s a Thing). The team digs the seemingly long-dead extra-terrestrialout of the ice and takes it back to the base, where it unfortunately springs backto life and escapes.

Soon enough, they discover that the alien has the ability toimitate other life forms by absorbing their bodies. Knowing this, they begin tosuspect that one or more people in the team may in fact be the alien indisguise. They understandably become paranoid, get the flamethrowers out andwait impatiently for one of their teammates to suddenly sprout tentacles out oftheir head or grow a massive mouth in their belly; they are not kept waitinglong, I must tell you.

It all sounds so hair-raisingly suspenseful, but I’m sorryto report that it isn’t; genuine suspense arrives only in brief spurts here andthere, and then quickly buggers off, leaving us more bored to death thanchilled to the bone. This is opposed to Carpenter’s version, a film soridiculously suspenseful that 1982 audiences were said to have left the cinemawith their fingernails no longer intact. The unrelenting tension and terrorthat Carpenter masterfully created back in ’82 is all but gone here, giving wayto cheap scares and forced suspense that just doesn’t work.

There’s also the problem that this prequel is far too relianton surprisingly crappy-looking CGI. This is of course utilised when the nastycreature reveals its hideous self, all tentacles and dogs’ heads and whatnot,resulting in a not-so-scary monster that looks a little too much like a villainfrom one of the “Resident Evil” video games. Carpenter’s version, on the otherhand, famously relied on good old-fashioned practical effects; these infamouslygrisly prosthetics are still terrifying to this day, most likely because therevolting creature they helped create was an actual physical presence, asopposed to something created on a computer screen and superimposed into ascene.

I apologise if I’m comparing the two films too much, but theprequel did sort of have this coming, what with how closely it seems todeliberately set itself to Carpenter’s version – it even has the same title,for crying out loud. I will, however, say this one thing in the prequel’sfavour: audiences unfamiliar with Carpenter’s version will probably enjoy thisprequel much more than those who are familiar with it. Those of us in thelatter category will most likely compare too much, which will never, ever workin the prequel’s favour.

3/10

Hugo

2011-12-05T01:27:00.001Z

Probably the most interesting thing about 3D family film “Hugo”is that it is directed by Martin Scorsese, a filmmaker famed for his viciouslyviolent and prodigiously potty-mouthed 18-rated flicks suitable only for mummyand daddy. Look down his filmography before the release of “Hugo” (ignoring1993’s U-rated romance “The Age of Innocence,” which, to be frank, no one reallyremembers), you’ll notice that the most kid-friendly flick Mr Scorsese has everreleased is a three-hour-long Howard Hughes biopic which features a butt-nakedLeonardo DiCaprio getting his willy out and pissing into milk bottles – oh, andthere’s that rather disgusting scene in which a bloody and broken Leo has thepalms of his hands horribly burnt before he is engulfed in flames following a nastyplane crash. Point is: Scorsese has never been known as a filmmaker who catersto young audiences.

And yet “Hugo” is entirely innocent, with nary a swearworduttered or a hand violently beaten to bits with a hammer. The film’s most child-unsuitablescene is probably a train derailment in which we witness a fair amount of wreckagebut no violence. All insults in the film are worded playfully and innocently, withwords like “urchin” and “buffoon” replacing Scorsese’s usual assortment of Fwords and C words. There is no sex and there is no violence, these insteadreplaced with an overwhelming sense of wonderment and magic. If anything, thesheer brilliance of “Hugo” – and it is very brilliant - shows that Scorsese is notonly one of the most gifted filmmakers working today but also one of the mostversatile.

As is with most family films, “Hugo” is based on a book. Thebook here is Brian Selznick’s award-winning children’s novel “The Invention ofHugo Cabret” of 2007. Portraying young hero Hugo Cabret in this big-budget filmadaptation is 14-year-old Asa Butterfield, who you may remember from the 2008Holocaust tear-jerker “The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas” (he was not the boy inthe striped pyjamas; he was the other boy).

Hugo Cabret is an orphan living between the walls of a Parisrailway station in the early 1930s. There, he secretly operates the clocks hisalcoholic uncle (Ray Winstone, “The Departed”) showed him how to work before hisdisappearance. Hugo has been living in this station since his father (Jude Law, “Contagion”),a gifted clockmaker, tragically died in a mysterious fire, following which hehas been living with his uncle.

When not managing the clocks, Hugo spends his days watchingthe people of the railway station (there’s an interesting romance that goes onbetween a newspaper seller and a café owner), sneakily stealing food from thestation shops and getting chased by Inspector Gustav (Sacha Baron Cohen, “Borat”)and his patrol dog. He also steals gears and cogs and the such from grumpy toyshop owner Papa Georges (Ben Kingsley, “Shutter Island”) to use on hisautomaton.

Yes, Hugo has an automaton. It’s a rusty, broken metallicman his father had purchased when nobody else wanted it. Hugo and his fatherhad intended on fixing the automaton together before the father’s unfortunate death.Hugo is determined to fix the bot, which has the ability to write when given apen in its hand. The literal key to fixing the mechanical man may lie in aheart-shaped key that’s meant to fit in the back, but where would Hugo findsuch a thing?

“Hugo” is a technical wonder; this should be of littlesurprise, given that Martin Scorsese is the main man behind the camera. There’snot a single film Scorsese has made that is not a technical wonder, but thereis also not a single film Scorsese made before “Hugo” that was in 3D. The 3Dhere is magnificent; unlike many of the 3D releases that Hollywood churns outtime and time again, the 3D in “Hugo” is crisp, clean and sharp, as opposed toblurry and nauseating. It is not a distraction, instead seeming to enhance thevisual beauty of the film. It looks gorgeous and breathes new life into whatis, on most occasions, a money-grubbing gimmick; I trust Hollywood shall watchand learn.

The film is also a wonder in terms of its inescapable charm.Right from the opening scene, in which we swoop through the snowy streets ofParis until we come to the watchful eyes of Hugo peering out from behind a clock face,the film enchants and beguiles. We are captivated by the intriguing story,which becomes particularly beautiful in the film’s second half. We are charmedby the character of Hugo, of Papa Georges, of Papa Georges' spirited goddaughter Isabelle(Chloë Grace Moretz, “Let Me In”) and even of comic relief Inspector Gustav. Weare curious about where the story will go, on what magical journey it will takeus on, but magical we trust it will be.

“Hugo” also works, rather unexpectedly, as an astonishingtribute to the magic of cinema. I shall not give away anything plot-wise relatingto this (to do so could be considered a spoiler), but what I will tell you isthat there is a flashback sequence to the early days of silent cinema thatperfectly sums up why I, among other film buffs, adore cinema, its power andall its wonderful wonders – in the more-than-capable hands of a cinematic genius such as Scorsese, this isof course a marvellous sequence filled with passion.

Part steampunk adventure and part love letter to cinema, “Hugo”is an absolute triumph of a family film that will charm and fascinate audiencesof all ages. It is a film that will make you smile, giggle and maybe even sheda tear or two. It is a pleasure for the eyes, the ears and even the heart tobehold; it is one of the best and most inspired examples of kid-friendlyentertainment I have seen in recent years. Take your kids to see “Hugo;” goyourself to see “Hugo;” either way, I implore you to go and see “Hugo;” this isalso one of those rare occasions where I shall recommend that you see a moviein eye-popping 3D.

10/10

Take Shelter

2011-12-03T22:37:00.001Z

Throughout the absorbing “Take Shelter,” viewers arepresented with an intriguing question: is the film’s protagonist sane orinsane? There are, of course, two answers to this question; either theprotagonist is sane or he is insane. But deciding which of the two answers iscorrect proves rather tricky; even after the striking climax of the film, the“correct” answer to the question remains quite ambiguous, revealing itself to be oneof those cinematic answers with a meaning that depends entirely on the personalinterpretation of the viewer; this will no doubt spark a plethora of heateddebates over at the film’s IMDb board.

The film’s protagonist is Curtis LaForche, who is played byMichael Shannon; you may recognise Shannon from HBO’s Prohibition era-set TV drama “Boardwalk Empire” and his Oscar-nominated turn in Sam Mendes’ “RevolutionaryRoad.” Shannon has that rare ability to fully construct a character whileappearing to do very little; his performance in “Take Shelter” shows thistalent in full.

Curtis is a construction worker living contentedly in thesuburbs of a small Ohio town. He has a loving wife, Samantha (the magnificent JessicaChastain, “The Tree of Life”), and a sweet young daughter, Hannah (Tova Stewartin her first role), who is hearing impaired. The LaForches are certainly not arich family, but they are surviving peacefully with what they have.

Curtis has been seeing many storms forming in the skylately; this would be normal for the area in which his family lives (they havea tornado shelter in their backyard), but the ones Curtis is witnessing are notnormal storms. Yes, he hears thunder; yes, he sees lightning; yes, he getssoaked in a shower - these are all typical symptoms of an everyday storm, butthis is not an everyday storm. You see, the liquid that pours down from theheavens above is not rain; it’s motor oil.

Several times throughout the film, Curtis is plagued byvisions of this ominous storm which no one around him can see nor hear. Thesevisions happen upon him both when he is asleep and when he is awake. There areslight variations in each vision; in one, he is violently attacked by the otherwise-friendlyfamily dog; in another, the storm causes complete strangers to go mad andattack both him and Hannah. He begins to wonder: are these just dreams, arethey symptoms of a mental illness or are they a God-given warning of animpending apocalypse?

Intriguing questions, no doubt, which serve to make “TakeShelter” all the more of a helplessly intriguing mystery. We, as viewers, spendmuch of the film attempting to solve this mystery; we are progressively handedpieces of a puzzle that we can’t help but try to piece together ourselves. Imyself attempted this with much doubt in my puzzle-piecing; in the end I wasstill to venture anywhere near a conclusive answer, but I did not find thisannoying or frustrating; indeed, I found it satisfyingly perplexing.

We follow Curtis as he himself tries to solve thismystery. He goes to see a doctor, whoprescribes him sedatives to help him sleep. He visits a local counsellor andtells her of his visions. He visits his mother, who was diagnosed with paranoidschizophrenia when she was in her early thirties; could it have been passed onto him? He begins to suspect that the visions are not just dreams but are awarning, but how could he possibly know? They could mean nothing; they couldmean everything.

Curtis begins to deal with the situation. Following the visionin which he was attacked by the dog, he builds a pen in the backyard for thedog to stay in. In real life, he is wary of and avoids those who attack him inhis dreams. He goes to the bank for money to expand upon the tornado shelter inthe backyard, just in case. He hides his intentions from his wife for fear thatshe wouldn’t understand. It’s a sign of Shannon’s talent that we fully support Curtisin these acts of possible overprotection and paranoia; but he’s just protectinghis family, isn’t he?

It’s true; Shannon gives an incredible performance that is aspowerful as it is heart-breaking. He is playing a man who is unstable and whois haunted by terrifying visions that he and he alone can see. He is worriedthat these visions may come true, that the end is nigh and that he may very soonlose everyone and everything he holds close to him. Shannon is fascinating as Curtis;his performance lets us sympathise with this character, even though Curtis maybe completely wrong and completely cuckoo.

“Take Shelter” is a sometimes scary, sometimes devastating,sometimes poignant but always enthralling tale of a man who may or may not belosing his mind. Writer-director Jeff Nichols (“Shotgun Stories”) has made aquiet, riveting and atypical disaster movie that works without fault as both apowerful human drama and an intriguing mystery that keeps you guessing rightuntil the very end, and even after that.

9/10

Moneyball

2011-11-26T00:05:00.001Z

I must admit that I myself am not a sportsperson. I do not follow sports, I do not watch sports, I do not take part in sports and I do not attend sporting events of any sort. While I admire the skill and talent that goes into a sports match or game, I’m mostly disinterested in the topic and more or less clueless about it; I’m the kind of guy who doesn’t know his club from his racket or his baseball from his basketball. In fact, there are only two things I know about baseball: one, the players try to hit something called a “home run;” and two, it’s a bit like rounders.

Okay, I’m exaggerating slightly, but I really am not a sportsperson in any way, shape or form; I feel I must stress this. So, when I was preparing to watch “Moneyball,” a baseball movie from Oscar-nominated director Bennett Miller (“Capote”), I was expecting to be perplexed by the rules and the tactics and the jargon that would no doubt be howled about again and again throughout the next couple of hours. And while yes, that did happen on occasion, and yes, it confused me to high heaven, I instead found myself more perplexed by something else, something rather unexpected: maths.

You see, “Moneyball” isn’t really that much of a sports movie, or at least not a conventional one. Yes, the plot revolves around baseball games and is a bit of an underdog story, but actual game-play is sparse, displayed only when it is necessary. The film instead focuses more on the frustrations of its protagonist, one of the men behind the scenes of a game, and the mathematical methods he uses to choose his players.

The film is based on Michael Willis’ 2003 non-fiction bestseller “Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game,” which was itself based on the true story of Billy Beane, the general manager of baseball team the Oakland Athletics. Playing Beane in this big-screen adaptation is the luscious Brad Pitt (“The Tree of Life”), who’s fast becoming one of the most reliable actors working today.

“Moneyball” shows us the 2002 season of the Oakland Athletics, who, in the opening scene, are beaten to a pulp by the New York Yankees. The determined and stubborn Billy is upset over the fact that he is going to lose three of his star players to free agency. He must also assemble a new team of players with a limited budget, but is unhappy with the current options of players.

It’s then that he meets Peter Brand (Jonah Hill, “Superbad”), a quiet and nerdy Yale economics graduate who works for the Cleveland Indians. Peter reveals to Billy that he has a unique method for figuring out the true value of baseball players: assessing them through some complex mathematical jiggery-pokery (don’t ask me to explain it). Billy is interested, hires Peter and takes his methods on board, much to the annoyance of the team’s scouts and manager, Art Howe (Philip Seymour Hoffman, “The Ides of March”).

At first, Art and the scouts appear to be very justified in their opposition to Billy and Peter’s strategy; the new players, all supposedly undervalued, are absolute crap when it comes to playing a game. The team loses constantly, resulting in Billy becoming more and more frustrated; as he points out, he hates losing more than he loves winning. However, while it may result in him never working in baseball again, he doggedly sticks to Peter’s theory, which may or may not pay off.

Pitt and Hill both give rather understated dramatic performances here; I’d say this is more surprising for lively comic actor Hill, but then again I suppose it’s more surprising for Pitt, given the character he plays. Billy is characterised as loud-mouthed, stubborn and anti-establishment, but Pitt plays him with effective minimalism. Peter, on the other hand, is characterised as quiet and shy, and Hill plays him as such. As a bit of an odd couple, they have a commanding on-screen chemistry that is one of the reasons “Moneyball” is as engaging as it is and works as well as it does.

Another reason, possibly a bigger one, is that the film is written by two very talented and very Oscar-winning screenwriters. These are Steven Zaillian (“Schindler’s List,” “American Gangster”) and Aaron Sorkin (“A Few Good Men,” “The Social Network”). Along with Miller in the director’s chair, they have created a sports film that is uncommonly smart, sharply written and persistently engrossing. It has touches of humour, stacks of drama and a story that contains something of a powerful message: stick it to The Man.

They’ve made a sports film that one can watch and enjoy without the need to be a sports fan; as you can probably guess from the opening of this review, I of all people should know this. The story is an absorbing one; even if you don’t understand the mysterious ways of the baseball world, it’s easy to follow and even easier to connect with. It also doesn’t give in to cliché or formula too much, which is certainly a relief for this specific genre.

9/10

50/50

2011-11-23T22:37:00.000Z

It's difficult to say whether comedy-drama "50/50" falls more into the comedy section or the drama section. If you were to say it falls more into the drama section, you still have the numerous moments of rib-tickling social awkwardness that frequent the film's narrative; there's also the fact that it stars Seth Rogen, a noted funnyman, as the secondary protagonist. And if you were to say it falls more into the comedy section, you still have the fact that the plot revolves almost entirely around the topic of cancer, a serious issue that is, for obvious reasons, a mysterious stranger in the comedy genre.

The film sort of meanders between both genres, and does it seamlessly. It takes a difficult and hard-hitting subject matter, one that’s a typical topic in the tearjerker section, and inserts it into a comedic setting without mocking or demeaning it, keeping its seriousness entirely intact. It’s both a drama that’s handled in a comedic manner and a comedy with an incredibly serious subject matter; this means the filmmakers are treading on very thin ice, but they’re treading with elegance and ease.

The cancer patient at the centre of “50/50” is Adam Lerner (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, “Inception”). He’s 27 years young, is a writer for public radio and has a loving girlfriend, Rachael (Bryce Dallas Howard, “The Help”). He doesn’t drive and so relies on his best friend and co-worker, Kyle (Seth Rogen, “The Green Hornet”), to take him to work. Adam begins suffering from back pains. He goes to see a doctor. It turns out he has a rare cancerous tumour attached to his spine. The internet tells him he has a 50/50 chance of survival; as Kyle reassuringly points out, if Adam were at a casino he’d have the best odds.

So, Adam undergoes chemotherapy. He begins vomiting in the middle of the night and during the day. He becomes exhausted. His somewhat laid-back disposition begins to gradually disappear as he sinks into depression. He can no longer enjoy sex, as his back aches during the act. His girlfriend becomes tired of having to care for him and becomes interested in other men. Adam begins to face the fact that he may very well die soon and without warning. It goes without saying that these moments fit squarely into the drama section.

As for the comedy section, we have, for example, a scene in which Adam consumes marijuana given to him by fellow cancer patients Alan (Philip Baker Hall, “Mr. Popper’s Penguins”) and Mitch (Matt Freqer, “Watchmen”) and proceeds to walk through the corridors of the hospital with a permanent smile on his face. We also have a scene in which Adam shaves his head with an electric shaver that may or may not have been previously used to shave Kyle’s pubic region.

Speaking of Kyle, much of the comedy stems from him too, which is a given with talented comic actor Mr. Rogen in the role. His character is foul-mouthed and inappropriate, and is practically obsessed with sex. He uses Adam’s illness to his advantage, e.g. getting the number of a girl in a bookstore by telling her how much he is taking care of his cancerous best buddy. He also gets Adam to use his illness to his own advantage, e.g. getting Adam to pick up a chick in a bar by blurting out his condition to her; unsurprisingly, this doesn’t work.

But, and I feel I must stress this, it’s not cancer that’s the butt of the joke, so anyone wishing to send hate mail to first-time writer Will Reiser had better put down their fountain pens or stop thumping away at their computer keyboards. The cancer aspect is confronted very seriously, the film in fact very effectively showing the process that a cancer patient goes through; it shows their character deterioration, the constant worries they undergo and the harsh consequences of chemotherapy, all done with a stern face. It just displays the social effects of having cancer through humorous means, and rather commendably too; it’s frequently hilarious and doesn’t make you feel bad for laughing.

The film is also a bit of a romance. Adam becomes a little more than interested in his therapist, Katherine (Anna Kendrick, “The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1”). Katherine is inexperienced in her line of work, admitting to Adam that he is only her third patient. While she is meant to keep things professional, she subtly expresses feelings of affection for him, for example giving him a ride home one day. This is the kind of romance I support in movies; Adam and Katherine are both smart, kind, sweet and understanding people with a spark between them, and I’m sure they’d make a perfect couple.

Gordon-Levitt’s very likable performance makes Adam a very likable character; as such, we care for him and care about what happens to him. Of course, in the back of our minds and sometimes the front of our minds, we know that the story could possibly end in horrible tragedy for this man. This thought is worrying: this is a man we like and care for and he may very well be stone dead by the end of the story. Perhaps this is why “50/50” works so well: we care for the protagonist and are genuinely concerned about whether or not he is going to die, which is more than I can say for some movies.

I think the fact that Reiser and Rogen have both actually went through this themselves gives the film a little extra weight and respectability. Reiser had spinal cancer when in his late twenties and Rogen is a good friend of his; with this film, they’re practically re-enacting their real-life experiences, though with Gordon-Levitt now in Reiser’s position, of course. I think that’s another reason the film works so well: it’s real for its writer and one of its stars and thus has a sense of humanity to it. And if Reiser and Rogen don’t have the right to insert comedy into the film’s situation, who the hell does?

9/10

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1

2011-11-18T23:22:00.001Z

I'd like to kick-start this review by openly stating that I, hand on heart, am an enjoyer of the first three "Twilight" movies. Now, notice I used the word "enjoyer" and not "fan;" there is a difference between the two. You see, yes, it's true, I have indeed enjoyed the opening three chapters of the increasingly epic movie saga about sparkling vampires and topless werewolves (I believe "Twilight," "New Moon" and "Eclipse" to be rather decently made, albeit as corny as a cornfield). However, I am by no means a "fan," a term which would undoubtedly give you, dear reader, the distinct impression that I am a squealing, swooning, tweenage Twihard who is proudly and loudly positioned in either Team Edward or Team Jacob, although if forced to pick between the two I would probably route for the former - Jacob's a mopey little twerp.

I'm saying this because I have already witnessed several professional film critics being viciously attacked by "Twilight" fans for having the audacity to review (and tear to shreds) the series' fourth instalment, "Breaking Dawn - Part 1," when it apparently "wasn't made for them." Going by this logic, twisted as it is, "Breaking Dawn - Part 1" was made for me; I am the "correct" age, I am a mumbling teen and, in spite of my gender, I have thus far enjoyed the "Twilight" saga, cheesy as the series may be. As such, I believe it to be my privilege and my right to inform you, dear reader, that "The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1" is, well, not particularly good.

I know, it's shocking - the trailers and TV spots made it look so amazing, didn't they? Hold on a tick, no they didn't. "Breaking Dawn - Part 1" is unquestionably the weakest of the fantasy film saga thus far, which, judging by the decidedly mixed opinions surrounding Stephenie Meyers' original "Breaking Dawn" novel, I think even the most dedicated of fans were predicting. However, I believe that many of the series' fans will nonetheless leave the theatre satisfied, regardless of the film's cavalcade of foolish faults and perplexingly preposterous moments - as long as there's the romance, the brooding and the all-important male hotness on full display, their needs will be fulfilled. As for the rest of us, we'll just have to roll our eyes, slap our foreheads and glumly suffer through it all.

You may remember right at the end of the third "Twilight" instalment, "Eclipse," that vegetarian vampire Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson, "Water for Elephants") finally proposed to his one true love, human Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart, "Adventureland"). Well, "Breaking Dawn - Part 1" shows us the long-awaited wedding of Mr Cullen and Miss Swan in all its cheesy glory, in fact spending almost half an hour covering the damn thing. Awkward speeches aside, the wedding is a success (they both say, "I do," squee!) and the newlyweds fly to beautiful Rio for their romantic honeymoon.

Inevitably, the prospect of lurve-making comes up, and it turns out vampires are right kinky buggers in the bedroom - they cover their partners in bruises, tear apart the bed's headboard and completely destroy the room. Well, that's what 100 years of abstinence will do to you. It also turns out that their testicles contain super sperm, because after just fourteen days of consummating their marriage, Bella discovers to her horror that she is pregnant, and the fast-growing baby sitting inside her might turn out to be a monstrous vampire-human hybrid that could kill her before she can even give birth to the little bugger. Looks like someone forgot to use protection. Tut tut, Edward.

Edward smartly wants the demon baby taken out of his new bride, but Bella, being the stupid bitch that she is, decides she wants to keep the bloodsucking monster growing inside of her. When Bella's totally-jealous werewolf friend Jacob (Taylor Lautner, "Abduction") learns of this, he's furious and, like, kicks a motorbike across the ground and has a very angry face (arrr, angry face, Lautner! Arrrr!). Jacob informs his tribe of the existence of the baby; the tribe, who loathe vampires, decide they must kill the unborn abomination, regardless of Bella's well-being. Upon hearing this, Jacob decides to protect Bella, though he's still got a sour face over the whole demon baby thingy. Meanwhile, Bella begins wasting away at the Cullen home as the monster baby growing inside her womb feeds away on her nutrition.

There are certain things about "Breaking Dawn - Part 1" that I liked. The first thing that springs to mind are the special-effects and make-up work used on Kristen Stewart to make her look frail and skeletal during the film's second half; they're rather convincing. There's also the fact that the film does manage to be mildly engaging from start to finish, the loose narrative able to hold one's interest in spite of its notable lack of thrills and the audience's likely knowledge of where the story is going. But holding one's interest is sometimes just not enough; a film must of course be a satisfying experience for it to be worthy of the price of a ticket, and I can assure you that "Breaking Dawn - Part 1" is certainly not a satisfying experience.

This might be because the film essentially covers only half the plot of its source material, much like "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1" did last year, though to much, much more success. As such, the film ends on a cliff-hanger, teasing us that something epic is about to happen, or, in other words, shit is, in all likelihood, about to get real. I was interested in seeing that, but alas, the end credits burst onto the screen and I walked out of the theatre rather unsatisfied. This is unlike in "Deathly Hallows - Part 1," where, when the end credits burst onto the screen, I walked out of the theatre not only incredibly eager to get my mitts on "Part 2," but also a happy and appeased moviegoer having seen “Part 1.”

Keeping in line with its three superior predecessors, "Breaking Dawn - Part 1" contains a plethora of unintentional comedy. This time round, we've got CGI werewolves angrily yelling at each other without moving their mouths, Bella drinking blood through a straw attached to a polystyrene cup, the messy aftermath of Edward and Bella's ferocious lovemaking (how on earth did they manage to break the doors at the other side of the room?), a birthing scene that's at times a David Cronenberg body horror and at others a Mel Brooks parody, the peculiar naming method of Edward and Bella's baby, and, last but not least, Taylor Lautner's acting. Sad face, Lautner, do your sad face!

And there is also the fact that the story at the centre of the film is absolutely, positively demented, specifically the plot concerning the evil demon fetus; it’s like one of the chest bursters from the “Alien” franchise. Of course, the film itself cannot necessarily be blamed for this - the blame goes mostly to author Miss Stephenie Meyer for writing such stupid tripe. But still, the fact is that the film does revolve around the evil demon fetus and suffers as a result; it comes across as a bad soap opera crossed with a revolting horror flick, and is not only a little bit silly but also a little bit off-putting - honestly, I'd rather go back to the Edward-Bella-Jacob love triangle than have to watch any more of this baby parasite malarkey.

Look, if you're going to see this movie, you already know you are going to see it; nothing I can say will stop you, but then again I don’t really want to stop you. But what I will do is warn you: as an enjoyer (not a fan, remember) of the first three films, I did not particularly enjoy "Breaking Dawn - Part 1." It's a silly, goofy, unintentionally hilarious fantasy film containing a bizarre story that's unsatisfying and, for the most part, unexciting. Whether or not "Part 2" will be any better I don't know, but seeing as to how it was filmed back-to-back with "Part 1," I'm not counting on it.

4/10

Arthur Christmas

2011-11-15T18:31:00.001Z

Following my viewing of the newly-released festive family film “Arthur Christmas,” I’ve been furiously racking my brains (and my google machine) for other genuinely decent Christmas movies that have been released in the last ten years. I discovered that, off the top of my head, I could name only two: Jon Favreau’s “Elf” and Terry Zwigoff’s “Bad Santa,” both of which were released in 2003. Google, handy as ever, reminded me of one more: Jalmari Helander’s “Rare Exports" of last year.

Many other recent Christmas movies also sprang to mind without the handy aid of my google machine; there were, among many others, David Dobkin’s “Fred Claus,” Joe Roth’s “Christmas with the Kranks,” John Whitesell’s “Deck the Halls” and Seth Gordon’s “Four Christmases,” none of which, suffice to say, are “It’s a Wonderful Life.” All of a sudden, something quite saddening dawned on me: we don’t get nearly enough good Christmas movies anymore.

Every year, typically in the days leading up to December 25th, we are handed a wide and diverse array of attempts at Christmas flicks, whether they be conventional (such as “Elf”) or unconventional (such as “Rare Exports” and “Bad Santa”). On occasion, we are given the option of festive film releases that are jolly, cheery, heart-warming and rib-tickling. Unfortunately, the majority of today’s Xmas flicks are lazy, worthless studio cash-guzzlers that, rather than turning us merry and gay, turn us into right old Scrooges. However, I am both happy and relieved to report that “Arthur Christmas” does not trip and stumble into the second category; it is in fact a Christmas movie done right, and may even in time prove itself to be a bona fide Christmas classic.

If you live in the UK, then “Arthur Christmas” is the first Christmas film of the year for you. If you live in the US, then that position belongs to “A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas,” which I must say most definitely falls into the category of “unconventional Christmas flicks.” "Arthur Christmas," which is director Sarah Smith’s feature-film debut, is slightly more conventional. It's computer-animated, is family-friendly, is produced by both Aardman Animations (they did “Wallace and Gromit”!) and Sony Pictures Animation (“Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs”), and is a notably British affair.

Like “Fred Claus” (plot-wise, not quality-wise), the film’s hero is a close relative of everyone’s favourite round-bellied, snowy-bearded, pork pie-devouring present-giver, Santa Claus (Jim Broadbent, “Hot Fuzz”). Arthur (James McAvoy, “X-Men: First Class”) is Santa’s youngest son. Arthur is obsessed with Christmas; he loves the traditions, adores reading and replying to children’s Christmas letters, is in awe of his father’s operations on the big night itself and knows the words to all the jingles - he even knows them backwards. However, it’s Arthur’s older brother, Steve (Hugh Laurie, “House M.D.”), who is next in line to don the floppy red hat, black boots, black belt and cherry-coloured coat. But Steve, while excellent at his job of keeping the present-delivering operations in sufficient order, is not particularly Christmassy.

Following another seemingly successful Christmas night, an elf is cleaning up wrapping paper when he discovers that a present - a bicycle, to be precise - has not been delivered. Arthur finds out, is mortified, and asks Steve to take them to the child who has not been given their present. To Arthur’s bewilderment, Steve decides that one child is not worth the journey and essentially tells Arthur, along with Santa, to forget about it - Santa can, Arthur cannot.

So, Arthur, along with his cranky, technologically-challenged Grandsanta (Bill Nighy, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1”), sneakily takes the old sleigh out for a ride to bring tiny little Gwen (Ramona Marquez, “The King’s Speech”) her present from Santa. But will he make it to England before the sun rises and Gwen wakes up? Well you, dear reader, will have to wait until you see this wonderful family film to find out.

I love the inventiveness of “Arthur Christmas.” I love how much wit and creativity the writers (Smith and Peter Baynham) have inserted into the Santa Claus mythology. I love the concept of the North Pole’s Christmas delivery system becoming little more than a glorified business. I love the military-esque methods in which the presents are delivered. I love that the new sleigh is a ginormous spacecraft, the underside of which has night sky camouflage. I love the charming voice-work, performed almost entirely by British actors. I love all the little elves, especially the one obsessed with wrapping paper. I love that Steve’s goatee is shaped like a Christmas tree. I love Arthur’s googly-eyed reindeer slippers that light up and play Christmas jingles. And I love that Arthur can sing “Silent Night” backwards without a moment’s thought. Yes, there’s very little not to love about this effortlessly charming and frequently rib-tickling film, and even fewer things to genuinely dislike - that’s certainly more than I can say for “Fred Claus.”

The film works mostly because of its very memorable characters; they’re an interesting and highly entertaining mishmash of clashing personalities and conflicting mindsets. There’s Arthur, a young man who’s even jollier, merrier and Christmassier than his multicoloured woollen Christmas jumper; he’s loving and caring, and will travel halfway across the world just so one little girl won’t feel left out on Christmas morning. There’s Santa, who has become increasingly forgetful and a bit ditzy over his 70 years of service, but never means any harm. There’s Steve, a man who’s all business and little heart; he cares more about the Christmas operations going smoothly than about the children themselves. And there’s Grandsanta, a grumpy old git who laughs in the face of technology and praises the good old days when being Santa was much more simple; he’s a typical pensioner, just with flying reindeer in his basement.

I mentioned above that the film is in 3D. Now, I’m afraid I cannot comment on the quality of the 3D, as I attended a 2D screening, but what I will say is that in just two dimensions “Arthur Christmas” looks pretty darn incredible. The film is quite a spectacle, and the thrilling, swooping visuals that take us through the several set-pieces - which consist mostly of sleigh-rides - complement this perfectly. The animation, all done on those computer animating thingamajigs, while maybe not on a par with the works of Pixar or Dreamworks, is nonetheless splendidly done. The character movements are fluid and energetic, the settings are wonderfully designed and the set-pieces, of which there are many, are relentlessly thrilling. The film really is a Christmas feast for the eyes to behold, even in the version without all the eye-popping, stocking-filling, turkey-stuffing 3D.

Like a candy cane, “Arthur Christmas” is sweet. And like an unopened Christmas present, it’s bright and colourful, with a ribbon on top. It’s one of those rare family flicks that succeeds in actually being fun for all the family; the kids will love the action, the elves and the animation, and may even learn a lesson or two, while older audiences will be utterly charmed by the film’s creativity, wit, voice-work, the marvellous script and the lovable cast of characters. Whether or not it’s just for Christmas I don’t know, but what I do know is that, as a piece of entertainment, this is an absolute cracker.

9/10

The Rum Diary

2011-11-07T22:42:00.000Z

It’s no secret that Hunter S. Thompson was a bit of a mad hatter; indeed, it’s practically the only way to describe the man. Known for his regular consumption of drink and drugs, the American author and gonzo journalist would frequently write of the substance-fuelled exploits and helplessly whacky adventures (possibly tall tales) he experienced right up until his suicide in 2005. Of all his work, Thompson's most celebrated is probably “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas,” published in 1971 and turned into a wonderfully weird film in 1998 by ex-Monty Python member Terry Gilliam.

The film starred Johnny “coolest man in the world” Depp, an inspired choice, who would become a good friend and admirer of Thompson. And now Depp is starring in and executive producing the filmic adaptation of Thompson’s “The Rum Diary,” which was written in 1961 and finally published in 1998. While it’s no “Fear and Loathing,” it’s an enjoyable and perfectly decent film about a not-so-decent man.

Like he did in “Fear and Loathing,” Depp is playing a role that was supposedly based on Thompson himself. The character is Paul Kemp, an American journalist and aspiring author who drinks “on the upper end of social.” He has moved from New York to the blisteringly hot island of Puerto Rico to write for the San Juan Star, a local newspaper that may or may not be about to be shut down.

While there, Kemp encounters quite a few colourful characters. His editor and boss is Edward J. Lotterman (Richard Jenkins, “Let Me In”), who is grumpy, troubled by Kemp’s drinking habits and wears an obvious grey wig. Kemp’s roommate and eventual friend is Bob Sala (Michael Rispoli, “Kick-Ass”), a bespectacled, beer-bellied photographer who knows his way around the area and the inside of a beer bottle. There’s also Moberg (Giovanni Ribisi, “Avatar”), a fellow reporter who, judging by his demeanour, seems to survive entirely on alcohol. In his spare time, Moberg also enjoys wearing a Nazi uniform while listening to recordings of Adolf Hitler’s speeches; whether or not he understands German, I don’t know.

Kemp is approached by Sanderson (Aaron Eckhart, “The Dark Knight”), a shady property developer who owns a luxurious house, a private beach, an expensive-looking boat and a jewel-incrusted tortoise. Sanderson wants Kemp to give favourable reviews of his dodgy property schemes in the newspaper, which Kemp is taken aback by but agrees to do once given a Corvette. Kemp also soon becomes infatuated with Sanderson’s fiancée, the beautiful Chenault (Amber Heard, “Drive Angry”), but is it love or is it lust?

The film’s narrative is rather loose, essentially a series of incidents as Kemp experiences, witnesses and reports on Puerto Rican life. It is a story that features, among other things, cock fights, angry waiters, disco dancing, overlong tongues, hermaphrodite witch doctors and fire-breathing drunks. Yes, it’s quite nutty on occasion, but “The Rum Diary” does not capture the sense of sheer and utter madness displayed in “Fear and Loathing,” nor do I believe it ever intended to.

I suppose you could call “The Rum Diary” a comedy, but then again I suppose you could call it a drama. It’s a hodgepodge of both, really; the humour isn’t frequent enough for it to be classified as a comedy, and to call it an all-out drama would be to ignore the outright-bizarre moments that pop up every now and then. It finds a reasonable point between the two genres, resulting in a sometimes quirky and sometimes serious tone that sort of works in the film’s favour and sort of doesn’t.

Depp once again makes for an excellent Thompson character, playing Kemp with that appealing and likable eccentric charm Depp is now famous for and has perfected over the years. Then again, I suppose Depp has an advantage at playing Thompson characters based on Thompson himself; while researching for his role in “Fear and Loathing,” the actor did in fact spend four months living in Thompson’s basement.

Kemp is a writer trying to find his “voice” while at the same time chugging back rum bottles and spraying LSD into his peepers. He’s a drunkard who we like; he’s cool, but not overtly so; he’s peculiar, but again not overtly so. He spends much of the film wearing sunglasses; his constant hangovers render him unable to deal with the bright and shining rays of the Puerto Rican sun. He’s an entertaining protagonist played by an actor who just oozes charisma with every word he utters and every expression he exhibits; they're a perfect match, you could say.

“The Rum Diary” is writer-director Bruce Robinson’s first film in nineteen years, his last effort being 1992’s straight-to-video thriller “Jennifer Eight.” Robinson’s first, and most well-known, movie is “Withnail and I,” another film about drink and drugs. That film was more successful both in terms of quality and the way it explored the problems of substance abuse in a comedic manner, but “The Rum Diary” is a mild and respectable success nonetheless.

6/10

In Time

2011-11-05T15:10:00.000Z

I’m sure you, dear reader, have heard the saying “time is money” at some point or another; it’s typically spoken by those who are in a rush or are on a tight schedule. Well, writer-director Andrew Niccol has certainly heard of this three-word phrase, given the fact that he decided to base an entire movie on it; now, this decision may seem ill-advised, and I suppose it is, but the end result is nonetheless a perfectly entertaining, mildly satisfying sci-fi thriller that works rather splendidly as Friday night fluff.

“In Time” imagines a world in which time literally is money, with time having replaced actual currency. You see, the humans that inhabit the globe have been genetically engineered to contain literal body clocks that cause people to drop dead when the ticker strikes zero. Once a human reaches the age of 25, they stop aging and are given a year to live, their tickers starting to tick all the way down to naught. So, if they want to live past their 26th year, they must work to earn more time.

The time that people have left until they drop dead is displayed on a ticking digital clock that glows green on their left arm. Various amounts of this time can be transferred from one person to another via physical contact. It can be used to pay for everyday necessities -- for example, a cup of coffee costs four minutes and a bus journey can cost an hour.

The world is split up into different class systems, called Time Zones. In an upper-class Time Zone, individuals have hundreds of years to spend, sometimes thousands of years. In the ghettos, however, individuals are frequently running on no more than a few hours or even a few minutes, having to work hard to live through another day with time to spend.

Our protagonist, Will Salas (Justin Timberlake, “Friends with Benefits”), is one of those who resides in the ghetto. Will is 28 years old and lives with his 50-year-old mother (Olivia Wilde, “TRON: Legacy”), who genuinely does not look a day over 25. He works in a factory and lives every single day of his life with the worry that his or his mother’s tick-tocking ticker will run out.

So, that’s the set-up. And now onto the plot. One night, Will encounters a 105-year-old bachelor named Henry Hamilton (Matt Bomer, “Flightplan”). Henry is sick of living and decides to give Will his remaining century, thus committing suicide. All of a sudden, Will is a rich man with a hundred years to spend. Soon enough, the time-keeping Timekeepers (led by Cillian Murphy, “Inception”) are after Will, who is now considered a wanted fugitive.

Will travels to a much richer, much more luxurious Time Zone called New Greenwich. There, he meets 27-year-old Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfried, “Red Riding Hood”), daughter of snobby millionaire Phillipe Weis (Vincent Kartheiser, “Mad Men”). Will and Sylvia end up on the run together, most of their time now stolen from them as they flee from the law and try to get their own back at the unjust system they’re living in.

“In Time” undoubtedly has an intriguing premise that, for the most part, is rather original. While, yes, there are elements notably taken from another sci-fi thriller, “Logan’s Run,” the film still feels fresh and inventive as it explores its promising concept and takes us through the futuristic world Niccol has conceived. The concept may seem a bit silly and far-fetched to begin with but, once the plot gets going, we find ourselves rather immersed in this high-tech world and its dystopian ways.

Issues such as mortality and social class inevitably rise up out of this concept as we watch the rich 1% blissfully sailing through life with thousands of years left for them to spend while the poor 99% die on the street because they can't afford a bus fare. With this, "In Time" is, on occasion, a little thought-provoking, which is pretty good going for an unashamed popcorn flick starring Justin "Sexy Back" Timberlake. But that's the thing: "In Time" really is little more than a high-concept popcorn flick intended to supply 90 minutes of escapist entertainment; it's blockbuster fluff and, in the end, its attempts at depth and social commentary are never strong enough to lift it above this status.

As an action film, it has plenty of thrilling sequences, from vehicle-flattening car chases to Bonnie and Clyde-esque bank robberies. There's a rather stirring techno score by Craig Armstrong that I enjoyed listening to. Timberlake makes for a fine action man, confidently striding through the film with a bald scalp and sexy facial stubble on display. Seyfried is equally fine as the love interest, a woman who’s never been broke a day in her life and is suddenly thrust into the world of the poor and the dying. And Murphy makes for a lovely villain, though he’s the sort that has a sense of humanity about him; he's one of those badguys just doing his job.

I admire "In Time" for giving an original premise a go; originality in Hollywood, as we all know, is a rarity nowadays, so some originality is always appreciated. No, the execution of the concept is not perfect, and the world it creates is not quite as convincing as it should be, but Niccol succeeds in making the concept interesting enough for us to remain attentive up until the end credits. "In Time" is certainly no "Inception," but I'd say it's worth spending 90 or so minutes on; that is, if you have 90 or so minutes left to spend.

6/10