:: The Kinky Afro ::

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol - (AKA, i heart Tom Cruise...)

2011-12-12T17:34:00.000-08:00

(An article i wrote for the print issue of Groove Korea)

Poor old Tom Cruise. The actor who was once the golden boy of Hollywood with that million-dollar smile, has now become known as that couch hopping scientologist nut. And we as a movie going public showed our displeasure with his antics by boycotting his films. Knight and Day, which I thought wasn't too bad, recouped but a fraction of it's gargantuan budget and despite some solid performances in Lions for Lambs and Valkyrie, audiences by and large generally stayed away. Even Paramount used Cruise’s "bad behavior" as one of the reasons for releasing him from his development deal after 14 years.

Now, whatever you may think about Tom Cruise as a person, there's no doubting his credentials as a movie star and his commitment to his craft. He continually seeks to do his own stunts and he doesn't forget the most important reason for him being where he is today, the fans. During one red carpet moment, he delayed the premiere of his film in London’s Leicester square so he could see as many fans as possible who came to see him (And no, I wasn’t one of them). Compare that with Britney spears who spent 20 seconds waving at the crowd before her premiere of Crossroads. But what does Cruise get in return? Water squirted in his face and a lampooning on Scary Movie 4!

Now, with a succession of relative failures by Hollywood standards under his belt, Tom Cruise has decided to return to the safer, more secure pastures of the Mission Impossible franchise. Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol sees Tom Cruise back as super spy Ethan Hunt who continues to work behind the scenes for the US Government along with regular team member Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg) and newcomers Jane Carter (Paula Patton) and Brandt (Jeremy Renner). After a covert mission goes bad and the IMF are implicated in the bombing of the Kremlin, Ethan and his new team are forced to go rogue to clear their organization's name.

I can understand the decision to go back to the tried and trusted formula of the Mission Impossible films. With the exception of MI:2, they are great rides, and judging by the trailer for Ghost Protocol it look as if Tom Cruise is back onto winning ways as the action seems bigger, as do the stunts. Again, the majority of stunts Cruise did himself. With Ethan Hunt’s team having to go underground, it appears as if Ethan Hunt has got a bit of Jack Bauer about him and being a huge 24 fan, this can only be a good thing. I think the decision to hire director Brad Bird who has previously only directed animation is risky, but considering JJ Abrams is still producing it appears that if you are a fan of the franchise, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol will not let it’s audience down and hopefully be a small step in a return to stardom for Tom Cruise.

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn....give me strength...

2011-12-12T17:24:00.000-08:00

(Article i wrote for December's print issue of Groove Korea)

Sun Tzu famously wrote in his classic The Art of War, that "if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle” but “if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles”. This is my justification for choosing to preview the latest installment of the Twilight series ‘Breaking Dawn’, when there are far more interesting films coming to Korea in December such as ‘Tin Tin’ or ‘Sherlock Holmes 2’. The Twilight films are one of my battles. I know they are horrible films. But to explain why and defeat them, I must know them, lest I will be imperiled and lose my good taste in movies. Besides, what kind or critic would I be if I didn’t acknowledge a franchise that has grossed almost $1 billion dollars in the US alone?

We last saw Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson, or R. Patz to the kids) propose to Bella Swan (Kirsten Stewart or K...Stew?) and Breaking Dawn sees them marry and enjoy a Honeymoon in Rio because as we all know, Vampires love hot sunny climates. However, not all is well in the Cullen household as betrayals abound and during a near fatal childbirth, Edward has to succumb to Bella’s wish to make her immortal or risk losing her forever. What should be a joyous moment as they becomes parents to a “remarkable daughter”, only sets off a chain of events that pits them against their enemies, the Volturi which culminates in an all out battle. Much like Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, internet rumors are rife as to where Breaking Dawn Part 1 will end and Part 2 will begin.

Now before I continue, I have a confession to make. I actually quite enjoyed the first twilight movie. There, I said it. I liked it so much that I even went to see New Moon. Big mistake, as that had to be one of the worst films I have ever seen and Eclipse was only marginally better. So what can we expect from Breaking Dawn? One thing that is for certain is that a lot of fans are going to be extremely disappointed. The huge talking point is the book’s notorious birth scene, which contains macabre details of vomiting blood, Edward biting through a placenta and bloody corpses. Hardcore fans want these essential details to remain, but Producer Wyck Godfrey has addressed this by saying, "it would be a crime against our audience to go R-rated" which translates to “we want to make more money”. So it appears that if you are a fan of the Twilight saga thus far you are in for a treat, meaning more of the same, but if you were looking for an adult adaptation from page to screen, you’re probably going to want to take comfort in a good book. May I recommend Sun Tzu’s The Art of War? It has gotten me through many a difficult tough time. Watching Breaking Dawn included.

Transformers: Dark SIDE of the Moon

2011-06-30T06:04:00.000-07:00

So, another "must see" 3D title is here, and this time it's Transformers: Dark of the Moon 3D. Strap yourself in for a action packed ride in 3D! Did i mention it was in 3D? Yes yes, I am being sarcastic, but with good reason. I mildly enjoyed Avatar and I thought it looked great, yet the film itself was lacking a great deal. Specifically, decent story. Step Up: 3D was great for a cheesy 3D flick, as was Final Destination 3D, but the final straw for me was Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland. Was it even shot in 3D? Because I couldn't tell. Then another final straw came in the shape of Clash of the Titans. I actually watched half of that film with the glasses off! But then the final, FINAL straw came with Green Lantern. I wanted to like that film so much but it just took itself too seriously and the 3D wasn't particularly impressive. So after seeing trailer upon trailer for Transformers in 3D, I was adament that I was going to give it a miss. But after reading only positive reviews from bloggers around the world, and in particular positive reviews of the 3D aspect, I decided to cave in and give it a go.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon introduces us to an alternate version of history, ala the opening of Watchmen but no way near as good, where the space race of the 1960s was instigated by an alien life form crashing into the moon. Low and behold, this "alien" life form was none other than the former leader of the Transformers, Sentinel Prime. He is rescued and brought back to Earth by the Autobots, but as you would expect, those pesky Deceptacons have ulterior motives and a war between the Autobots and the decptacons ensues. Of Course Sam Witwicky (Shia LeBeouf) finds himself at the centre of the war due to his closeness to the Autobots and needs to be saved from constant danger. It's not all bad for poor old Sam though, as after having been dumped by Megan Fox, he finds himself a new, even hotter girlfriend in the form of English model, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley. So, would this film restore my faith in 3D films? And is it actually any good? The answer to both those questions i'm afraid, is yes AND no.

The 3D visuals in this film are FANTASTIC! I know people use Avatar as a bench mark for what 3D should be (I still say Final Destination 3D should be the bench mark, but hey, who am I?) but this definitely equals Avatar at times. Some of the action set pieces are stunning and the camera work is amazing. The stunts are huge, the robot fights are immense and the camera goes everywhere. The fact that the back drop to Transformers is a real city and not the computer generated Pandora only adds to the films achievements as the last set piece is techinically one of the best actions sequences I have seen in a while. The wide helicoptor shots of Chicago with robots atop Trump Tower are just breath taking. After about an hour into the film when you are given your first full on Robot vs. Robot fight, I thought this is going to be one of the best action films i've seen all year, if not the best 3D film i've seen, ever! Sadly, it wasn't to be.

You see, the reason I answered "yes AND no" to my earlier question, is that Transformers: Dark of the Moon is basically two films. There's the good stuff when the Transformers are fighting, and then there is everything else. And i have to say, everything else ain't pretty. The rest of Transformers is HORRIBLE and I can't remember the last time i rolled my eyes in disgust so much at a film. Even The Human Centipede got a "meh" from me, but this film is scarier than The Full Sequence will ever be. The acting - terrible. The dialogue - terrible. The directing without robots - terrible. With the majority of the film being so bad, it ultimately took away any enjoyment I might have had in the robot sequences. I was so bored and frustrated through the rest of the film that I found it impossible to get excited the overly long 45 minute finale.

The first big problem I had was the film's need to force feed us Sam Witwiky's new relationhip with sexed up Brit, Carly. The first shot we see of her, is literally a close up of her arse-cheeks. Yes yes, teens and adults alike all enjoyed looking at a sweaty, sexy Megan Fox, but this was just ridiculous. The film seems so desperate to justify this new relationship, that Michael Bay crams in scenes of them kissing or of cheesy flashbacks to when they first met, or forced dialogue referring to Sam being dumped. It's just all too much, as one second you're trying to watch an action film, but the next minute the films turns into Dawson's creek complete with the slow-mo and acoustic guitar sundtrack. It feels like two different films have been stitched together but the Dawson's Creek-esque parts are more embarassing than romantic. Not to mention the fact that she is WAY out of his league, it's unture. Now these may sound like the words of a bitter man, and they probably are, but for the sake of verisimilitude one might deem it plausible that in Transformers parts 1 and 2, Sam and Mikaela go through this life changing experience therefore making Sam and Mikaela's relationship a reality. But here, they are just thrown together after meeting for a brief second and they become soul mates? Pur-lease. And if you have to hook Sam up with a hottie, which to be fair, they did...at least get one that can act! For all Rosie Huntington-Whiteley's beauty, you never see any emotion on her face, only those pouty, pouty lips. "Just let it go, Dean" you say. "It doesn't matter if she can act, she is the "eye candy"". Well I say YOU'RE WRONG! The whole final act is based upon Sam's love for Carly and his desire to save her. But if we don't believe that they should be together or that they don't love each other, why shoud we care?

"Just leave it, Dean..." you say. "The main focus of the film is the robots, right? Don't let it bother you." You're right, you're right...BUT NO! Not only do we have a relationshio that doesn't work, but we have Michael Bay's attempts at humour every 5 seconds. In particular John Turturo who returns for the third film, but for some reason decides to reprise the character of Jeses from The Big Lebowski. John Malkovich makes an apearance as a wacky boss desinged to give you some laughs, but he is only in the films for 10 minutes and he is not funny. I just didn't get it. The same goes for Ken Jeong who plays the nerdy tech guy but is so over the top it's untrue. I actually cringed every time he was on screen. Oh yeah, remember Sam's parents, Ron and Judy and how they always used to mock poor little Sam? It was funny in the first film, wasn't it? Ha ha. Remember that? It was slightly amusing in the second film. Now the do the same thing, but say "shit" a lot so it's even funnier. Ha ha. Hilarious. It felt to me like Michael Bay had watched Adam McKays Step Brothers the week before shooting and decided this would be his inspiration. Step Brothers was funny. This was not.

The rest of the supporting actors appear as if they are simply phoning in their performances. Take Tyrese Gibson for example. It's feels as if the real Tyrese Gibson was busy on another film so they borrowed his waxwork dummy from Madame Taussauds and got that to say his lines instead. Same can be said for the amazing Oscar Winner Frances McDormand. She either has children who like the transformers or kids that like money! And then there's Shia Lebeouf. My god is there Shia Lebeof. I don't know if it's due to Michael Bay's directing or whether Shia Lebeouf is paid by the word, but the guy does not shut up! Why say 5 words whn you can say 20? Again, all this might be nitpicking, but when you have a 200million dollar summer blockbuster where the films plot centres around robots trying to wipe out the human race, do you really want your audience cheering for the villains?

Speaking of Robots, thank god walking racial slurs Skids and Mudflap are gone. Thank god the director and producers learned their lesson from that debacle. So instead of two jive talking robots, we have a cockney autobot that sounds Australian and calls people wankers, and a Scottish robot that wants to headbutt people. And don't forget the two black guys that insult each other the whole time and knuckle bump. You gotta have the knuckle bumps. You dig?

I don't know if it's simply because my tastes in films have changed over the years, but the Transformers franchise is no longer for me. It's not that I don't love action films anymore. My biggest movie guilty pleasure is the Fast & Furious films, with Fast 5 being one of the best action films I have seen in a long time. But I would happily sit through The Coen Brothers' True Grit 10 times in a row then watch Transformers 3 again. And that's True Grit. A film in which practically nothing happens for 2 hours, yet I loved it. Now, please just don't take my word for it, as many of you will no doubt love Transformers: Dark of the Moon and ignore a lot of the things I had a problem with. I just could not. Some of the things I have picked up on may seem harsh, but this is how the film made me feel. In terms of the 3D quality, this films needs to be seen in the Cinema and ideally in an IMAX theatre. But be warned! It's long. And if you had any issues with the first Transformers movie, you will hate this. As for me, I have definitely learned my lesson and will be abstaining from the whole Blockbuster/3D movie gimmick in the coming future. Wait, what's that? Harry Potter in 3D is out this month? I'm in!

Wait a minute....

******************************************UPDATED************************************

Having time to reflect over the weekend, I thought I might have been a little harsh on Transformers: Dark of the Moon. There was a lot of praise for the film, albeit none towards the acting, plot or dialogue, but a lot of praise none the less. I saw the trailer on TV again this weekend and I got a little excited thinking about some of the set peices, and I was even contemplating going to see it again. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, so knowing what I knew now about the film, surely I could just revel in the 3D/SFX magic and just do a suduko on my phone while Shia LaBeouf is talking.

But then I saw this.

You've got to be kidding me? He rehashed a scene from a previous film? I thought the scene looked a little stranged at first, but I just presumed that it was due to the sparse nature of the highway. They must have had to close it down for a while and it would have taken a while to film so I just let it go. Now after watching this video it all becomes clear. WE'VE SEEN IT BEFORE! It's a $200 million dollar movie, the least you can do is try to make it totally original.

So, having seen this, and realised I was justified in my original opinions and theTransformers won't be getting another Penny from me. Bad Boys 2 or no Bad Boys 2 - Bay, we're done!

February's film viewing....

2011-03-01T15:33:00.000-08:00

Having returned from Korea, and being quite sick for most of the month, February has given me a lot of time to catch a few films. Some good, some not so good.

But here's the list in order of viewing, i'll pick my top 3 at the bottom. If you guys have seen anything worth watching, let me know or feel free to comment on the films i've seen.

Piranha

Unfortunately, i didn't see the 3D version, but i bet Kelly Brooks boobs and the giant, bitten off penis that was hurtled towards the screen would have looked GREAT in eye popping 3D. lame script, lame acting, lame effects, but the film knows it and is a lot of fun. I liked it a whole more than i thought i was going to!

Nine

Not really for me, this one. Thought it was quite dull and was lacking that "pizazz" that 'Chicago' had. Plus, for a musical, the songs were pretty crap.

A Single Man

Loved it. Looked great but not as stylised as some made out, and i thought the acting was great. This was the film that Colin Firth should have won the Oscar for, not the "oh, it's his time..." bollocks that got him it for The Kings Speech. Which leads me on nicely to....

The Kings Speech

Good acting, yep, looks good, yep, it's about the monarchy, sure, but i really didn't see what all the fuss was about here. It's great for British cinema and all that, but when will we ever see a 'Nil by Mouth' esque British film doing well and not something based around the British elite. Having said that, this poster is a hoot, isn't it? Look how cheeky Geoffrey Rush looks. Yeeeah, look at you, ya' little scally wag. I wonder what cheeky chappy ideas he's got going on there? Probably thinking why have Miramax photoshopped a picture from 20 years ago to his body, that's what...

RED

I actually really enjoyed RED. Some good stunts. Some great chemistry between Willis, Freeman and Malkovich. A great plane ride film. Unlike...

Paranormal Activity 2

Crap. Utter crap. it wasn't as bad as the first one seeing as the annoying boyfriend was hardly in it, but Paranormal Activity has clearly become a cash cow which the industry fully intends to milk dry. Horror/Sci fi is probably my favourite genre of film, and i fully appreciate how great the first Paranormal Activity was at promoting itself and appreciate the stir it caused. But take all that away, you're left with nothing but hand held cam with two attempts at scares, and a trailer that tells you how scary it is, which, which makes you think you're scared even before you've seen the film, when the film isn't scary at all! Scariest film in years, my arse! Paranormal Activity 3 is scheduled for release later this year if you're interested.

Let Me In

Now, Let the Right One In was a horror film. One of the best films of the last 10 years if you ask me. I was worried about a remake and was reluctant to see it. Part of me thought right after seeing the original, that would i have liked it as much if it was in English? While i preferred the original a great deal, i still enjoyed this a lot and thought it did the original justice. Didn't quite capture the same feeling of unease and i think the final scene was poorly recreated, but on the whole a solid effort.

The Inside Job

If you're too lazy to read a paper, or look on the Internet for the causes of the global melt down, watch this. It was a good film. Informative and what not, but how this beat 'Exit through the Gift Shop' is beyond me. But let's be honest, like i said, this is a topic that a lot of people could have researched themselves whereas who really knew about underground street art except for underground street artists? Everyone has a bank account and knows how they were swindled, but not everyone has a Banksy.

Never Let Me Go

I'm sure it's a great book, but for me, it just didn't work as a film. Not as a story and not as a piece of Art. Not enough interesting shots to work as an Art film, and not enough character development to work as a story on screen.

Paul

Funny enough to satisfy Frost and Pegg fans, but falls way short of hitting the heights set by Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. Full review is here.

Black Swan

Loved it. Absolutely loved it. There aren't enough words to describe how much i loved Black Swan. Oh wait, yes there are. Right here! If you haven't noticed yet, i liked this film...A LOT!

True Grit

I'm not usually a fan of Westerns, but this was directed by the Coen's so i thought i would give it a go and was pleasantly surprised. I couldn't quite put my finger on what i liked so much about it, but then i couldn't put my finger on what i didn't like, either. Good acting, good directing, good script...the film looks great!...overall it was just a solid film. Well worth a watch.

Rollin With the Nines

After having worked for the director last year on a project, i had a few hours spare and decided to see his first feature. While it is obviously very low-budget, it had some very good action sequences and it was nice seeing something different to the mockey "fackin' ell guvnor'" type gangsters that were coming out left right and centre at the time.

Bonnie and Clyde

I don't remember this film being so funny the first time i watched it and i'm sure this wasn't supposed to be the case. Watch as part of a film club, but i'd recommend watching it by yourself, as it's a classic and was one of the most controversial films in it's day.

Waiting for Superman

A harsh look at the education system in the United States. Heart breaking at times but interesting watch none the less. It also made me thank my lucky stars that i wasn't born a poor boy in America. Man that would suck.

Blue Valentine

I loved it. A heartbreaking and sometimes uncomfortable portrayal of a relationship when two people fall out of love. Really great stuff. Not much of a story here, more of an insight, but really great none the less. You can read a review from the Electric Fleapit here.

The Nutty Professor

Erm...maybe it was because i........erm........you see, Eddie Murphy used to be....erm........the make up effects at the time were.......oh whatever! SCREW YOU, OK! DON'T YOU FRICKIN' JUDGE ME! IT WAS LATE, IT CAME ON AND I COULDN'T STOP WATCHING IT, OK! I JUST COULDN'T STOOOOOOOOP!!!!

So, number 1 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis....

1. Black Swan

2. Blue Valentine

3. True Grit

If ay of you guys have any films that you watched last month that you'd like to share with me, please do. If you think i've got the wrong opinion about any of the films i've seen, let me know that too. But please don't bother if you're going to tell me i'm wrong about Paranormal Activity, as i'll just stick my fingers in my ears and go "LALALALALALALALALALA, I AM NOT LISTNING TO YOOOOOOU"!!!!

Movie Review - Paul

2011-02-17T08:05:00.000-08:00

Shaun of the Dead was one of the few genuine surprises i've had in my years of going to the cinema. I didn't really think a rom-com-zom would be for me, but i loved it. it was hilarious, and the chemistry between Simon Pegg and Nick Frost was fantastic. Then came Hot Fuzz. It didn't quite hit the heights of it's predecessor, but i laughed a great deal none the less, and it was a cracking homage to action films everywhere. Now the third Frost and Pegg collaboration is Paul, which sees our duo accompanied by Seth Rogan as the Alien which the film is named after. After viewing a trailer, it didn't seem like a film i was dying to see, but with 2 hours to kill between Black Swan and True Grit, and seeing how i hadn't been let down by Frost and Pegg in the past, i decided to give it a go.

Paul tells the story of British comic book geeks, Graeme Willy (Simon Pegg) and Clive Gollings (Nick Frost) who, while on holiday in the US visiting famous UFO hot spots, encounter an alien named 'Paul'. As you might expect, Paul, is on a mission to get home and needs the help of Willy and Gollings. Unlike E.T, paul is a foul mouthed, chain smoking, beer drinking, R-rated Alien who likes boobs and eating birds. Their mission to get Paul home is made more difficult as they encounter not only CIA send agents, lead by special agent Lorenzo Zoil (Jason Bateman) but rednecks looking to kick some gay ass, and god-fearing folk looking to get back his daughter.

When i first saw that Seth Rogan was supplying the voice of Paul, i was a little bit skeptical as i feel i have suffered from Seth Rogan overload in recent years, and have become bored and diluted with him playing the same character and telling the same jokes in every film. However, Seth Rogen as Paul worked . Every time he spoke i laughed. It's the same drunk, foul mouthed stoner comedy you'd probably expect, but coming out of the mouth of a 3-foot tall alien, i found it hilarious. Sadly, this was the only thing that stood out about the film.

That's not to say there is nothing else to enjoy about Paul, it's just that while the film is a an enjoyable popcorn flick, it comes no way near to reaching the heights of Shaun of the Dead or Hot Fuzz. The chemistry between Pegg and Frost was at time the funniest and most endearing thing about their previous films, but in Paul, this chemistry seems to have been substituted for foul mouthed toilet humour. Not that i find 'dick' jokes and swearing offensive in any way, i just expected more. The supporting cast are funny at times, but it all feels a little bit too try-hard and dare i say it; American! I can understand a desire for the film to be set in the US and to try and break an american audience, but i felt Pegg and Frost just looked a little alien (no pun intended) and lost in their surroundings.

Paul will be a hardcore science fiction fans dream in trying to count the number of references to other films, but i just felt like something was missing. Whether it be the the American setting, or the inferior supporting cast, it just never really got out of second gear and never quite captured the magic of Shaun of the Dead of Hot Fuzz. But hey, maybe that's my problem and my problem alone and you guys will love it, as it was still an enjoyable film with plenty of laughs throughout

Movie Review - Black Swan

2011-02-17T06:22:00.000-08:00

Darren Aronofsky is fast becoming one of the most exciting directors of the 21st Century. From his frenetic debut, Pi, through to my favourite film of the last decade, The Wrestler, he is on par with The Coen Brothers and Christopher Nolan as someone whose films i will go to any lengths to see. During Black Swan's initial launch, i was in South Korea where it was deemed unfit for a theatrical release, (i guess murder and lesbian sex isn't everyones cup of tea. . . ) so i found myself having to "go out of my way" to watch it on a tiny screen with poor speakers. Definitely not the way Black Swan was intended to be seen. I enjoyed it enough, but jumped at the chance to see the film in the cinema once i returned to the UK. Hey, murder and lesbian sex ARE my cup of tea!

After entering the world of amateur wrestling with The Wrestler, Black Swan sees Aronofsky venturing into the high brow world of the New York ballet scene, in which we follow Natalie Portman's Nina, a shy, aspiring ballet dancer who lives with her mother who strives for her daughter to be the best. The company's director, Vincent Cassel's Thomas, is producing a new version of Swan Lake and Nina is selected to be the Swan Queen. Thomas has doubts however, that she can fully channel the role of the black swan and encourages her to "let go" both artistically and sexually to fully capture both swans. As Nina struggles with competition from the over sexed, Lily, her paranoias and fears come to the fore as she is lead down an Alice in Wonderland type spiral of self harm and hallucinations until we reach the final crescendo that is the final, brilliant performance of Swan Lake.

Black Swan is sexy, confusing, uncomfortable, exhausting and brilliant. I loved every second of it and much like Requiem for a Dream, i found it exhilarating and thought it showed ones person decline and descent into madness superbly. It had been a while since i had gotten to the end of a film and just sat through the entire credits to gather my thoughts about what i had just seen. (The last film to do so was Gasper Noe's 'Enter the Void')

But what makes it such a good film? In short, everything. Aronofsky has created such a claustrophobic, paranoid world, that you can't help but revel in Nina's sense of paranoia. The set design owes as much to this as does anything else. Everywhere you look there are subtle nods to Nina's transformation with black and white colours filling every room, similarly with the costumes. She is the pure white swan, always in virginal colours until she finally lets go in a club and is handed a sexy black outfit by Mila Kunis' Lily. In almost every scene, mirrors and reflections abound giving us indications to the split personality inside of Nina. In a nod to Lewis Carroll's 'Through the Looking glass', Nina falls down the metaphorical rabbit hole of perfection and madness, but only this fantasy Wonderland has grave consequences.

Much has been said about Natalie Portman's performance, and while i was initially only impressed by her physical transformation and dancing skills, upon second viewing, i found Natalie Portman captivating and thought she did an excellent job playing the shy, vulnerable Nina, which only made her transformation into the Black Swan even more impressive. She earns her spurs during the second act of Swan Lake where we see her whole persona and body language change as, in her mind, she literally becomes the black swan. The visual and sound effects add nice touches in transforming Portman into the swan queen. The subtle sound of a flapping wing here, or the scales of her skin rising there were great touches without taking us out of her performance. I don't know much about Ballet, but from I saw in the film, i can tell that Natalie Portman must have worked extremely hard as i thought the dancing scenes were fantastic. The way this was shot was also responsible for this, as much like the Wrestler, a lot of the "action" was shot hand-held with the camera running in and out of the performers as if the camera were dancing with them in these long takes.

The supporting cast all do their bit, with Mila Kunis particularly impressive as the laid back, sexy Lily. As does Vincent Cassel as stage director Thomas Leroy and Barbara Hershey is particularly frightening as the dominant mother who is now living her dreams through her daughter.

To give my reviews a air of credibility, when i clearly like a film, i usually like to pick up on something that might have been less than impressive to show that i am giving an unbiased account. However, I really couldn't fault Black Swan. I've seen Black Swan described as 'pretentious' 'predictable' with sketchy characters. I couldn't disagree with these comments more. If by pretentious, you mean "unconventional"? fine! Predictable? Sure! The first time we are told the story of Swan Lake, it was obvious that Nina's life would run parallel to this ballet's story, we would just be watching to see HOW events unfold, and unfold they do!

While Black Swan might not have as many Oscar nominations as The Kings Speech or The Social Network, i would still rank it as my favourite film of the year and i hope it does well at the Oscars and i look forward to seeing more of Aronofsky's work. Hell, i liked it so much that i might even go back and take another look at "The Fountain". Now if that doesn't tell you how much i liked Black Swan, nothing will!

Interview with Tyler Crawford - Aged 10 - after watching Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part I

2010-11-13T07:03:00.000-08:00

(DC) What is your name?

(TC) Tyler Crawford.

How old are you?

I’m 10 and I’m in year 6.

What is your favourite Harry Potter film so far?

The Chamber of Secrets. I loved the end when he killed the book with that snake tooth.

So, what did you think of the film?

I thought it was 5 out of 5!

Why did you like it so much?

I liked it because it was a really adventurous film and because at some moments it was really scary!

Anything else?

I liked the bit where they told the story of the three brothers (the story explaining the existence of the Deathly Hallows). It was a good story. I don’t think it would have been that good if I had of read it but because I could actually see it, it made it a lot better. The animation was really cool!

What didn’t you like?

I didn’t think it was that funny. I laughed once or twice, but it wasn;t that funny. Other people might find it hilarious, but not me.

What was your favourite part of the film?

The part with the three brothers?

Really?!

Nah, nah, nah…my best part was the snake fight in the house. Because it was scary. One minute he was fighting Harry Potter and the next he was jumping out to the screen!

Any other bits you liked?

I liked the bit when Ron smashed the necklace (a horcrux) because it was really cool. It was scary and and came out to the screen. There was nothing I didn’t like! (Pause) Oh, hang on! I didn’t like it when Dobby died as that was sad. And I didn’t like the part where Bellatrix was torturing Hermione.

Who was your favourite character?

I think my favourite character was Dobby as he was funnier than all the others and I thought he was cool because he could teleport.

What do you think will happen in part 2?

I think they are going on a quest to find the hufflepuff cup?

The what?

The hufflepuff cup. You know, the things they have to find.

The horcruxes?

No, the hufflepuff cup!

They are looking for “horcruxes”!

Well you said that they we’re looking for the hufflepuff cup!

Oh sorry, my fault then?

Yep!

Are you looking forward to Part II?

Yes, very much. I think it’s going to be more adventurous and I’m looking forward to seeing how they escape the traps!

Would you recommend the film to your friends?

Probably not.

What? Why not?

Well, all my friends don’t like Harry Potter….they think it’s a bit geeky.

Really? So you wouldn’t tell them to go and see it?

Maybe. I mean, I really liked it, but I just want to fit in…like Meg in Family Guy! (said with irony) But if they liked Harry Potter I’d tell them it’s great!

Can you sum up the film in one word?

I can’t sum it up in one word can i???

Sure you can.

Alright then…supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!

Any last thoughts?

The film is number 1!

But you won’t tell your mates?

Nah, I’ll tell them that it was 5 or 6!

Anything else you won’t to say?

I will say I’m proud of my big brother…..and I don’t mean you Dean, ha ha!

Movie Review - Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I

2010-11-13T06:40:00.000-08:00

As some of you will be aware, i spent well over a year of my life working at Hogwarts and the reward for that was an advanced ticket to the cast and crew screening of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I. Well, i say cast and crew, but i found out last year that it is mainly crew and friends of the crew that go, as the majority of the main cast tend to skip out on this screening and wait for the premiere. Suckers! This screening was a full 5 days before the world premiere so, ha! It made no odds to my little brother mind you, as i managed to convince him that Ron's stand in was actually Rupert Grint himself. So in his eyes, he was mixing with the stars! Right, enough of my babbling, onto the (hopefully, not too biased) review.

As we all know, Harry Potter is a global phenomenon. I have been to several parts of the globe where kids couldn't speak a word of english, but could happily tell you the four houses of Hogwarts! It's amazing. And the buzz of what would and wouldn't be included in the final parts of the franchaise caused intense speculation on the web. Debates had been raging since the films announcement.

In some ways, I feel this buzz and passion transcended onto the set, and you could tell there was definitely an attempt by director David Yates to do the last book justice and keep in mind the story that needed to be told. I mean, it seemed that everyone was well aware that you can have all the effects and action in the world, but if you lose sight of the story, you don't have a film. So how did all this hard work and effort turn out on screen?

In a nut shell, very well. (The following includes minor spoilers so please don't read on if you haven't read the book or are not interested in knowing what happens.) Deathly Hallows part one picks up with a warning that everything has changed. Voldemort's army are attacking both humans and wizards and are slowly taking control. Harry and Hermione have had to pack up their remaining belongings and leave their homes. It is particularly tough for Hermione who has to not only leave her parents, but to also erase herself from their memories and become an orphan herself like Harry. What follows in the next 2 and a half hours could essentially be described as a road movie with magic. Deathly Hallows Part One is the build up to the final showdown between good and evil. The horcruxes introduced inThe Half Blood Prince need to be found, and it is up to our three heroes to find and destroy them. This is no easy task mind you. Voldemorts army are out to find Harry Potter and nobody can be trusted. We watch as they scour the country high and low for clues, constantly putting themselves in danger and ultimately getting caught by Bellatrix's army.

The film definitely lives up to hype and it opens at such a pace that you are hooked from the start. I thought The Half Blood Princelost a little spark and strayed too far from the book, but that isn't the case here. The "seven potters" sequence is truly breathtaking and let's you know that you're not in hogwarts anymore. Within the first 15 minutes, George loses an ear and mad eye moody is killed. The polyjuice sequence in the Ministry of Magic is epic but also provides a few laughs.

At 2 and half hours long, i was never once bored and that is saying something considering that almost everything you have seen before is absent from this film. There is no hogwarts, no quidditch and no kids except for a few brief appearances from our supporting cast. This is all about Harry, Ron and Hermione and there quest for the horcruxes and their persuit to destroy Voldemort.

The acting again betters the previous years efforts as do the special effects. There are some real tense moments the 3 main cast have to deal with, but they did a great job and you really feel for them and i'll admit it, there were a few unexpected emotions flying about at the end. There were some great cameo appearances from the likes of Rhys Ifans who seemed like a top bloke, and Bill Nighy who was one of the nicest people i met on the set. Well, i say met. I think i just stared at him for a few days until he had no option but to say hello!

I did have a few issues with the film however, but these were the same issues i had with the book. I found the middle section seemed to drag on for far too long. This is where the bias of working on the film may come in, as i personally wasn't bored by these sequences as it was a trip down memory lane. But one might find it a little tedious watching 3 kids on the hunt for horcruxes and on the run from you know who. I understand that this was such an important section of the book in terms of storyline, character development and the fact that it sets up a large part of what is to come later on in the story, but if you are not a hardcore fan of the books and maybe only watch the films for the fantasy elements, it may leave you sitting waiting for the next big set piece.

I couldn't recall too many things missing from the book, except for a lack of explanation as to why the kids can be traced so easily. In the book it is because Voldemort can trace a person everytime they say his name, but there is no real reason given as to why they are being found so easily or why this suddenly stops. But they do start using "you know who" instead of Voldemort. Another thing that i found odd, but i believe to be the same as the book, was the lack of love for poor old Mad Eye Moody! There is a very sad moment towards the end of the film when a loveable character dies and you could tell most of the audience were welling up. Even big old Dean here got a bit emotional and had to be strong for his little brother's sake. But when poor Mad Eye Moody kicks it after trying to do everything he can to save Harry, it's like ". . . and we flew away from the deatheaters and they almost caught us but it's ok cos we're back. . . oh yeah, Mad Eye's dead. What's for dinner?". I also got this same vibe in the book.

These are only personal gripes and have more to do with the book than the actual film itself. If the things i didn't like about the film were not included, i'm sure the hardcore fans would have been more than upset because like i said before, you can have all the magic in the world, but without a good story you have no film.

So overall i felt The Deathly Hallows to be a success. It should be every Potter fans dream - It's adventurous, fantastical and is a real spectacle. And on a personal note, i couldn't tell you how proud i was to be associated with it and see my name come up in the closing credits. (About 6 minutes in if anyone stays that long!) The film definitely had a lot of story telling to do, but this sets up the Deathly Hallows Part 2 perfectly. And even though i'm not really a Potter fan, i can't wait to see it. There were some longs days and nights spent filming filming the finale and it's set pieces, and i'm positive it will be the perfect ending for most Potter fans!

"Sorry Dean, but i just don't see the resemblance so i'm afraid you can't be my new stunt double!"

Movie Review - Predators

2010-07-16T08:08:00.001-07:00

"And i would have gotten away with it, if it hadn't of been for those pesky kids!!"

Having not been a fan of the original 1987 Predator film set in the deep depths of the jungle, I was reluctant to spend 8 of my unemployed British pounds going to see this updated remake/sequel. I don’t know what it is, but I find the predators very one dimensional and boring. When you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all. It’s not like a slasher film where the killer can mix things up slightly and vary his kills. The Predator = hiding in the jungle and striping up some unlucky sucker! However, with this being a quiet period before the release of some bigger summer blockbusters, I decided to take a punt and indulge in a double bill of Predators and Street Dance. Yes my friends, times are hard.

The plot is very, very simple. 8 people awake in the jungle with no memory of how they got there and no knowledge of each other. All they know is each person is a killer in their own right (Black ops, Mexican mafia, Death Row inmate etc.) It slowly unravels that these killers have not been put in the jungle to hunt and kill, but rather something is hunting them. Yup, those pesky “ugly mutha fuckas!”. What follows is a predictable game of cat and mouse as both sets of killers, human or otherwise, try to figure out how best to destroy the other and survive.

After going into to the film with very low expectations, I have to say that I actually enjoyed it a great deal. From the opening 15 minutes, you get the impression that you are watching a Saw movie set in the jungle…but with Aliens…which instantly adds another dimension to the film. For me, the main reason it worked was down to Adrian Brody. When I first heard he was cast as some kind of action hero, I couldn’t really see it, but it turns out he was great in the part. He was cool, calm and in lesser actor’s shoes, his dialogue certainly would have come across as cheesy and unbelievable, but it worked. The supporting cast also had a big part to play in the success of the film. In particular, Walton Goggins from The Shield provided the comic relief but was never over the top. The Predators looked good as always and provided us with some really gory moments. And I’m sure learning how the Predators hone their skills and getting more of an understanding into their psyche will be a nice touch for hardcore fans of the Predator series. But for me, I much preferred the sequences with the human killers rather than any Predator action.

The film does have some pacing issues towards the end, with a scene designed to explain what is taking place seemingly lasting forever and slows things down a great deal. And even though Predators does at least try to be a little different from its predecessors with it’s premise, it’s also realizes that you can’t veer too much from a winning formula. Because of this some parts of the film, and in particular the finale, feel a little contrived. Some might call it paying homage. But wasn’t Bryan Singers Superman Returns supposed be some kind of homage, and look how that turned out?

However, the few grievances I had are far outweighed by the rest of the film and on the whole, I really enjoyed Predators and it was a hour and a half well spent.

Movie Review - StreetDance

2010-07-15T14:32:00.000-07:00

Believe it or not, I had actually been itching to see Street Dance 3D for a while now. Yes, it’s true. Dean Crawford is a fan of generic Dance flicks. West Side Story aside, I used to abhor these types of movies, but I happened to stumble across the first Step Up movie some years back due to the lack of English Language films in South Korea, and came out a converted man. I mean, it wasn’t a particularly great film, but it was a lot of fun with some hilarious scenes to boot (wholly unintentional I’m sure). I also liked You Got Served which had an amazing dance off in the finale, and not to mention Roll Bounce which had a skate off in the end. Basically, anything with an “off” in the end I’m all for. So when I saw there was an English effort being made, I was up for supporting the film and seeing if our British compatriots could ‘Step Up’ to the plate and produce something to rival the Americans.

Before StreetDance actually started, the final preview was for Step Up 3D, which I thought was a little unfair, yet totally apt. I felt it unfair to show what would essentially be a glitzier, bigger budget version of the film we were about to see. Yet apt seeing that StreetDance clearly owes a great debt to the first Step Up. Both films follow a dancer with raw talent, struggling to make ends meet but with aspirations of a bigger and better future. And through a chance meeting, both end up taking part in a prestigious dance school/music college. Of course, at first the two contrasting styles fail to connect, with one side being either too posh or too common for the other. But after time, and several montages later, they both realize that their styles can compliment one another and they finally learn to blend street and ballet for the final performance. But no dance movie would be complete without an outside factor hindering one’s ability to make it to the final showdown. Whether it be the big game in High School Musical or an untimely scheduled audition for the best school in the country (Street Dance/Step Up – delete as appropriate). But never fear, Cinderella shall make it to the ball and the final performance shall be had!

If you take the film for what it is, which is a kids Dance movie, it is a lot of fun and some of the dance routines are pretty impressive. It’s not serious in any way and generally everybody is always happy and smiling, the people wear bright colours and I’m sure they will be BFF’s forever. It’s a feel good film that I’m sure young children who have seen an episode of Britains Got Talent in the last few years will revel in. I refer to BGT of course, due to the inclusion of Dance Acts such as Flawless and Diversity, which were a nice touch, and hopefully give these skillful groups more exposure if the film makes it overseas. Flawless, in particular, have a role as the main “villain” of the piece and their routines do switch flawlessly (no pun intended) from TV to Film. Some of their moves are outstanding and I could easily watch the film again and again. That, as I have mentioned, is if you take the film for what it is.

If you don’t take the film for what it is, however, and decide to judge it on it’s own merits as a piece of cinema, then you would have to say it was once of the most poorly acted and lazily written films you have seen in a long time. I had flashes of Alice In Wonderland all over again, with an incredibly annoying leading lady that if I wasn’t so stubborn…or cheap…I would have left the cinema. To be fair, Nichola Burley doesn’t have much to work with in terms of a script, but there’s just no emotion in her face and her lines are so poorly delivered it’s untrue. The same goes for all the supporting cast. The script reduces them to caricatures of either posh snobs, feisty London rude girls, horny leaches or dancing buffoons. And there is no hint of originality to the story in the slightest. It’s as if it’s straight out of a Step Up “how-to” guide book but the setting has been changed to London and the script has been made less sexy and ballsy to give it a PG rating.

BUT, and I repeat but, that’s if you don’t want to take the film for what it is. I on the other hand do! I am willing to ignore all of the films faults and can safely say that StreetDance is a thoroughly enjoyable film for anyone under the age of 12 (or in my case, 29!) and I am glad that I went to see it and did my part to help support the UK film industry. Now, excuse me while I go and limber up for the nearest Dance Battle I can find.

WHAT, WHAT!!!

Get LOST - The finale pre and post viewing event

2010-05-18T08:10:00.000-07:00

I almost cannot believe it. 6 years of our lives have passed and our Lost adventure is almost over. It's been a long, hard, strenuous but ultimately enjoyable experience and one that i am very excited to see how it ends. However, did you notice one word that i didn't use to describe my lost experience? That was fulfilling.

As much as Lost has captivated and excited me, it has disappointed in equal measures. I distinctly remember thinking during Season 2, that if it didn't stop putting out filler episodes that go no where i would stop watching. Luckily the week after was the return of Michael where he shot not only Libby and Ana Lucia, but also himself. BANG! I was back.

Each season seemed to follow this trend of a huge opening followed by several slower (some would argue filler) episodes then a race towards an exciting finale. I had hoped that the final season would have changed this format slightly and packed every single episode with great reveals or exciting plot twists. I expected each flash to relate to on island actions or to tell us more about each character. Instead, we got sequences of Sayid fixing vases, or Jack watching his son playing the piano. With the power of hindsight, how has that helped the show? I wanted more episodes akin to Ben or Locke's flashes, where each scene was a reference to seasons past and had some kind of new reveal or corralation to another character.

In typical Lost fashion, i felt the pacing of the final season was off. There was too much of a void in the middle, but then a sprint towards the end and in doing getting some quick reveals to some extremely important questions. We found out what they whispers were in passing. We know why the island is so special - It is life itself and has to be protected. Wow. Great. Though i would have like more than a few passing lines in the last episode (which, in my opinion, was diabolical!) and explored these further.

We have two episodes left and i can't for the life of me see where they are going with it. I initially thought that the flash sideways were the creation of Fake Locke. I thought that they were his impressions of what he imagined the Losties' perfect lives to be. I thought as the season continued, both timelines would clash, forcing them to choose which timeline they want to stay in. But seeing as Locke definitely wants them dead and no such offer has been made, i have no idea how it will end. If anyone has any thoughts on this, please put them up. We could possibly have a sweep stake where each person makes five or so predictions about how Lost will end and the person who gets the most right wins the stash!

I could go on for hours about what i have like/disliked about the final season (or the show in general for that matter) but this is just the start and i'll open the forum up to the rest of you. No matter what you might think, this is a huge event in television and i wish i could make it to Vics for the showing, but internet chatter will have to suffice. There might only be two episodes left, but the finale will only be the beginning. For every person that is happy with the finale, another will be outraged. I just hope i'm not one of them!

**UPDATED**

Now we are only 24 hours away from finishing our last ever Lost episode. Vicky has arranged what looks like will be an excellent event. Let me know not only your thoughts on the episode, but on the night itself. Hopefully someone did decide to dress up as Hurley!

Movie Review - Kick-Ass

2010-04-01T07:21:00.000-07:00

Violence - Check! Sex - Check! Drugs - Check! Foul Language - Check! Burning Buildings and crazy costumes - Check! And this was just my bus journey through East London to the cinema. I was off to see the new Superhero film, Kick-Ass from Producer-cum-Director-cum-moghul-cum-Supermodel's husband-cum-lucky so and so, Matthew Vaughn.

The advertisement campaign for Kick-Ass has been huge. You couldn't walk ten feet without seeing a poster with the green, wet suited avenger staring at you. And after after watching several (extremely violent) trailers, I was excited to catch an early showing of the film and put up an early review. Those plans were almost scuppered however, as I didn't put my serious-film-reviewer-hat on as i accidentally got very, very drunk!

A friend and I had pre-booked tickets to see the film at the Screen on the Green in North London. A lovely little cinema with EXTREMELY comfortable sofas with arm and footrests (well, that is the least you would expect for £12.50 a ticket!) and a little table to place your drinks as there is a fully licensed bar with table service. I had no idea about this and if I did I probably wouldn't have had the 5 pints with dinner as we went through a bottle of red by the time the trailers were over. Let's hope this doesn't hinder my review! From what I remember...

Kick-Ass is the story of Dave Lizewski, an exceptionally normal teenager whose only special power is being invisible to women. Tired of being a nobody and getting pushed around, he decides to create a costume to become a Superhero and fight crime. His alter ego, Kick Ass, fast becomes an internet sensation and pretty soon, other costumed heroes such as Red Mist (Christopher Mintz-Plasse), Big Daddy (Nicolas Cage) and Hit Girl (Chloe Moretz) come forward to assist Kick-Ass. But when mafia boss Frank D'Amico (Mark Strong) decides to send a message that being a superhero can be bad for your health, our heroes are faced with their biggest challenge yet.

Kick-Ass is the total antithesis of most superheroes movies that has come before it. It's an R-Rated Spider-Man if you will. Dave Lizewski is basically Peter Parker in disguise. He has the same geeky demeanor and is ignored by women. He lives in the same colourful, leafy suburbs of New York and is beset by family tragedy. But where as a film like Spider-Man only alludes to issues of growing up and being a teenager, Kick-Ass slaps you across the face with them with a nunchuck.

Take an early scene in the first Spider-man film for example, where Peter Parker is exploring a new part of himself, shooting that sticky, creamy substance from his wrist in his bedroom. Aunt May is dismayed by the clamour and wonders what is going on behind closed doors in his room. She knows what he is really doing. We all know what he is doing. In Kick-Ass, no subtlety is needed. Dave is a typical teenager and is jerking off to his school teacher before the opening credits are over. When he becomes a superhero, we see him use his superpowers for good by having sex with his new girlfriend in the ally. The best quote from this film that sums up where Kick-Ass sits in the realm of Superhero films is this: "With great power, comes NO responsibility!".

All the characters are foul mouthed and vicious. The only other film i can think of that was similar was the Watchmen, but that was so dark and brooding, more in tone with The Dark Knight. Kick-Ass still looks and feels like a comic book, just with real characters. For example, before the film even begins we see a guy fall to his death trying to be a superhero. But he was not a hero, just mentally insane. It was refreshing to see a film that was fantastical yet set in the real world at the same time.

Aaron Johnson is good as Kick-Ass, as are the rest of the supporting cast, but the real star of the show for me is Chloe Moretz as Hit Girl. She swears like a sailor and and is more clinical with her gun than Dirty Harry. It's unbelievable seeing how sweet she can be in one scene, yet so convincing shooting up a whole gang in the next. Nicolas Cage is surprisingly good as Big Daddy and Red Mist still has a bit of the 'McLovin's about him but is still has some funny lines.

The directing was also quite impressive and Matthew Vaughn has clearly done his homework into the superhero genre. There are also some original moments to the film and the action sequences are exciting and exhilarating. It was good to see some great camera and grip work in the film moving Matthew Vaughn forward visually and stylistically. One scene in the lumber yard is particularly great to look at without compromising the story.

If I had any gripes with the film, it would be that it looked so similar to some other superhero films in tone, and was almost a shot for shot copy of Spider-Man in certain areas. I would guess the film-makers would say that this is the point as it was supposed to be similar yet drastically different at the same time. The film still worked however, and if this was my only complaint I don't think they have anything to worry about.

Kick-Ass is the kind of superhero film that you have always wanted to see. Kick-Ass could be anyone of us as despite being set in a fantasy world of costume avengers, Kick-Ass has no superpowers, no money and no special gadgets. Just a will and a desire to make a difference. I doubt people will try to copy Kick-Ass and try and become a superhero in their own right, but it has certainly given me a few ideas of my own. Not from a need or desire to do good and fight crime, but i might need a costume and some nunchucks just to make it back home through the mean streets of hackney! Wish me luck...

Movie Review - Crazy Heart

2010-04-01T06:48:00.000-07:00

Crazy Heart was one of those films I never really had any strong desire to see. But after Jeff Bridges won the Oscar for best actor, it suddenly became a film I felt I had to see, rather than one I wanted to. I mean, come on. . . it's the dude! Gotta show some support.

Crazy Heart tells the story of washed up country and western singer Bad Blake Nelson, who has seen his fame diminish and has now resorted to playing tiny bars and bowling alleys. He is overweight, alcoholic and needs to turn his life around. This opportunity comes when a meeting with a female reporter (Maggie Gyllenhaal) and an offer from his protégé Tommy Sweet, (Colin Farrell) he is faced with a choice to turn his life around or stay and follow his same destructive path.

I have to admit, I quite enjoyed Crazy Heart. It's a nice, touching story and gives us a deep insight into the life of a fading musician and how they can struggle with life after the fame and money have gone.

As you might expect, Jeff Bridges was brilliant as Bad Blake Nelson. He looked the part, and you could really feel Bad Blake's pain as he tried to battle his inner demons and find something to give his life meaning again. Gyllenhaal was good as the single mother but nothing really stood out as a brilliant performance. Certainly not in the same league as some of her fellow nominees, but I thought their dynamic worked really well and she made the mother a really believable character in her own right, rather than turning into some kind of caricature only here to move the story along.

And seeing as the last country and western song I bought was "Achy Breaky Heart" by Billy Ray Cyrus, I wasn't sure how I was going to respond to the music, but I thought it was great. A few of the songs are extremely catchy, annoyingly so. But they are used a great device to provide us with back-story for Bad Blake. Where as in Ray or Walk the Line or Other funny film where they use flash back. Bad Blake doesn't like talking about his life so his songs do it for him.

This brings me onto one of the main problems I had with the film. Mirroring the current state of Bad Blake's life, not a lot really happens. We see him tour, drink, fuck, repeat. I suppose we are supposed to be more concerned with the relationships between the characters and watch and as Bad tries to make something of his life.

Another problem i had was that I didn't find the story original in any way. There are several movies where our hero has had a fall from grace and battles with his demons. The most recent I can think of is The Wrestler. It was practically the same story and in light of Jeff Bridges and Jamie Foxx's Oscar wins, I thought Mickey Rouke was quite hard done by as he was fantastic.

While i really enjoyed Crazy Heart, it didn't leave me with anything the way The Wrestler or Walk the Line did, and i don't feel like I’ll think about it again apart from the songs I can't get out of my head. I’m sure I have missed something here as a lot of professional reviewers have said that Crazy Heart is great. If you think my review of Crazy Heart was unjustified and not very good, just don’t tell my heart. My achey breaky heart. I just don’t think it understand…

Movie Review - The Crazies

2010-04-01T06:40:00.000-07:00

During the awards season, one is generally spoiled for choice with quality films at the cinema. I had the choice this particular Sunday of Avatar, Alice in Wonderland, Invictus or Precious. So what did I choose to see? The Crazies directed by Breck Eisner.

I had been excited to see this film since I first saw the trailer, as I actually had no idea what the film was about. It looked like a zombie film but it didn’t appear to have any zombies. It was a thriller but with a creepy edge. It looked like it could have been the film that M. Night Shayamalan’s The Happening should have been.

The film takes place in the Midwestern town of Ogden. A tiny farming community with only 1,200 people where everyone knows everyone and life is good. That is until a few of the towns folk start displaying strange symptoms and start acting a little….well, crazy.

After a military plane is found in the local river, the government is sent in to round everybody up and lock down the town to see who is infected. When the town’s sheriff’s wife is mistakenly diagnosed as a “crazy”, he risks his life to rescue her and to escape to the next big town. This is harder than it seems because not only do they have to evade the crazies, they also have to avoid the army who are taking no prisoners.

I tend to find the main problem with films of this kind is that they take too long to establish characters and plot, and the scare set-pieces are too few and far between. Not so with The Crazies. Events get going in the first five minutes and never lets up. The Crazies is simply one of the best horror films I have seen for a while.

I know this may sound cheesy, but I really was on the edge of my seat the whole time. Like any good horror film, the scares come thick and fast and are really well. One particular scene in a morgue was particularly creepy and will make you think twice before you ever pull the sheets off of somebody again. The camera work is shaky and in your face, but in this instance it fits perfectly as it contrasts the scares brilliantly with the vast landscapes of Iowa during the few quieter moments.

It’s main focus is just to scare the pants off you. There is no needless exposition explaining why people are the way they are. There is no cheese filled dialogue getting in the way of the action. It is a very real story with real character motivations. There are no scenes breaking into labs or discussing cures. There are no plots to take down the government, the characters main focus is simply to survive.

The actors all do there jobs considerably well. Timothy Olyphant does a good job as the sheriff and you and was also impressed with his wife, played by Radha Mitchell, who I usually have no time for. Joe Anderson who plays the Sheriff’s Deputy is also very impressive, especially when you realize that he is English, and you can put this mostly down to the script as we can all relate with our primal survival instincts.

The Crazies is not a perfect film by any strectch of the imagination, and sure there are some things wrong with it. Believe it or not, but I thought there were too many scares. After 2/3 of the film, it became a bit predictable as you knew every time they sat down or relaxed a crazy was going to attack. I’m sure some people won’t be too pleased by the explanation to the virus, or the lack of back-story to our characters, but I believe some of these “weaknesses” are the films strengths.

The Crazies doesn’t break the mould in any way, but mainly solidifies and builds on it. And while it might not be the perfect film and does contain a few flaws, what it does do, it does very well. And that is play to its strengths by keeping you on the edge of your seat until it makes you jump out of it. If you are getting bored of the recent race for Oscar gold or are getting sick of the latest 3D blockbuster, The Crazies is the perfect antidote.

Movie Review - Alice In Wonderland

2010-03-29T12:27:00.000-07:00

I recently saw an internet viral film spoofing the works of Tim Burton. In it, “Burton” tells how the studio wants to make a new movie. His employees sit up with excitement and ask will it be something original? “No” Burton retorts. “We’re going to take a creepy old story and make it even creepier…get me Johnny Depp and my wife on the phone!”. “I can’t not do that”, sighs a disgruntled employee.

Rather than being revered and heralded as one of the all time greats, it seems that in recent years Tim Burton has become more of a laughing stock and his visions have fallen below par from his usual high standards. If there was ever a film that Burton was destined to make, it was Alice in Wonderland. With it's alienated main character and surreal world, it seemed like Tim Burton would rise to the top of his game once again.

The film follows Alice 13 years on from her last adventure. And while she has some recollection of those events, she merely dismisses them as dreams and her own sense of fun.

While she is faced with the prospect of marriage, Alice is summoned back to Wonderland as all her old acquaintances such as The Hatter (Johnny Depp) the Tweedles (Matt Lucas) Mouse (Barbara Windsor) and the White Queen (Anne Hathaway) need help defeating the evil Red Queen, played by the brilliant Helena Bonham Carter.

As you would expect, the world of wonderland is vibrantly alive with the amazing visions of Tim Burton. The sets are dark and brooding and the character design is fantastic. The Red Queen is particularly good with her bulbus head and over the top mannerisms.

Some of the animation is excellent too. I thought the motion capture and animation of their mouths was like nothing I had seen before. The way they spoke was so lifelike, it was unreal.

While all this was initially a joy to look at, unfortunately these were the only things to get me excited in a 2-hour-plus film. The rest of it just lacked that certain spark.

Take Johnny Depp's Mad Hatter for example. Whereas most of the characters had some kind of physical manipulation, he was “normal” which simply gave him the appearance of a disheveled circus clown. And his accent ranged from John Leguizamo’s Toulouse-Lautrec in Moulin Rouge and an angry version of his J.M Barrie in Finding Neverland. All things that we have seen and heard him do before. And there in lies the films biggest problem. It feels like we've simply seen…it…all…before.

Johnny Depp is wacky, the trees curl like fingers, the colours are vivid and the music is orchestral, but i never felt fully engaged enough to care. Mia Wasikowska’s Alice is not a particularly likeable character and plays her with no emotion or feeling whatsoever. Maybe she focused so hard on her English accent, she forgot about portraying her emotions. However, like I stated earlier, Bonham-Carter’s Red Queen is excellent and I really enjoyed Hathaway’s White Queen and some of the other supporting cast.

Alice in Wonderland is a dazzling vision from one of the most innovative directors working today. At times it dazzles and wonders, while at others it leaves you feeling deflated, bored and like you're watching a repeat of some of his previous works. You keep waiting for something to invigorate the experience or to be lost in the next big set piece. Before you go to see Wonderland, maybe it is wise to keep in mind that the film is distributed by Disney and is rated PG. So I doubt it will be as dark and as brooding as some Tim Burton fans had hoped. For some, this film might not be Tim Burton enough to satisfy the die-hard fans, but for some relatively unfamiliar with him and the story of Alice, it might be a welcome introduction.

Movie Review - Micmacs

2010-03-06T04:07:00.000-08:00

The following was first over on the recently formed film club The Electric Fleapit's website (www.electictricfleapit.wordpress.com), hence the elaborate talk film club and deviation from a full on review. Have a look if you are interested...

Bonjour mes ami and welcome to the first film review from the Electric Fleapit. After great work over the last few weeks by our dear leader, Vicky Fabri, the film club has finally come together. Our choices were put up on the Electric Fleapit website and gradually we all made our voices heard and voted for what our first film viewing would be. With it being Oscar season, there were several quality options for us to choose.

Unfortunately, being the loser that I am, I had seen most of them so it narrowed my choices considerably. However, I hadn’t seen A Single Man and I really wanted to see if the hype surrounding Colin Firth was justified and see what Tom Ford had to offer. A Single Man was leading the vote for a good while, only to be usurped at the last minute by Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s Micmacs. I was a little bit upset about this, as I had heard it wasn’t his best effort. Not to mention the fact that I am incredibly selfish. Much to my dismay, I believe in the democratic system we live in so went along for the jaunt. Even so, the thought of starting up my own film dictatorship did cross my mind. As did the thought of taking inspiration from my own personal favourite dictator, by kidnapping a film director to make a movie for me. Good old Kim Jong Il you commie fool!

Alas, Micmacs it was. 8.30 at the Barbican centre and there was quite a turnout. 14 in fact, so well done all. And in typical English fashion, we were quickly up the bar ordering Malteasers and booze faster than you could say ‘Micmacs à tire-larigot’. With snacks, booze and tickets in hand, we made our way into the theatre.

Now I am all for supporting independent cinemas and film, but I have to admit that I am a sucker for a multiplex. The perfectly positioned seats, the large screens, the surround sound and what not. Heaven. But don’t blame me for this, blame the society we live in, but as I walked into the cinema it instantly struck me as having the appearance of a university lecture hall. I thought the screen was too far away and there were no cup holders. NO FREAKING CUP HOLDERS, I TELL YOU! But once I sat down in those comfy seats and only had to sit through a few minutes of commercials, I was more than happy to be in an independent “fleapit” to enjoy Micmacs.

Prior to coming tonight, I did some research and was intrigued to see the film as it only came about after Jean-Pierre Jeunet abandoned his adaptation of Yann Martel’s Life of Pi due to budgetary conflicts. Jeunet said he needed $85,000,000 to tell the story of a boy in a boat with a tiger. The studio said “non”. Jeunet said “Au revior” and wrote Micmacs instead. Pretty impressive seeing as it has taken me almost 3 weeks to finish two recaps of Lost.

Now first things first, and the answer to the question which we almost went to war over is “non”. Audrey Tautou was NOT in this film! Despite the Tautou argument, the general consenus and scores of the group varied from 6 out of 10 up to 8.5 out of 10. There was a cheeky 7.7 out of 10 from Fabbri thrown in for good measure to give an average score of 7 out of 10. Upon reflection, I feel my own mark of 6.5 out of 10 was unfair, as I thought Micmacs was a delightful little film and it’s occasional brilliance far outweighed whatever initial misgivings I might have had.

For those of you that didn’t see the film, the premise revolves around Bazil who is a victim of two arms companies. One produced a landmine that killed his father, which subsequently sent his mother mad, and the other produced a bullet that has become lodged in his brain 30 years later and could kill him at any moment. This in turn forces him on the streets where he is subsequently “adopted” by a family of weird and wonderful characters who want to help him get his revenge in a series of humorous capers.

Micmacs is at times amazingly inventive and visually quite stunning. Jean-Paul Jeunet has to be one of the most artistically creative directors working today. Even though they may appear simple to construct with minimal camera set-ups, there is nothing simple about the content of his scenes. Whether it be the use of animation to show Bazil’s “random question” technique to stop himself from passing out. Or putting real life thought bubbles into people’s heads, his use of editing and his well thought out compositions make him a standout director, in my opinion.

The acting is also particularly good from the whole cast. Be it a minor comedic cameo from an airport security guard or our hero, Bazil, played by Dany Boon. Boon’s performance is extravagant and has a youthful charm. I couldn’t stop likening his performance to that from the silent movies of old and Charlie Chaplin in particular. However, it is the supporting cast that really steal the show, with the odd-ball characters such as the uptight human cannonball or the contortionist who hides herself in fridges whenever she is scared. My personal favourite is the African poet who has a flair with words in the worst situations. He steals the scene in every one he is in. Not forgetting the man who invents all kind of weird and wonderful contraptions out of junk. One in particular had me laughing out loud, or “LOL’ing” if there are any kids reading. Some of the best characters, however, are the sets. The junkyard where the Micmacs live is so grandiose and contains so many nick-nacks, that you could probably look at it for hours and still find something new.

The initial problems I had with the film were down to pacing and my own expectations. After the first 15-minutes I thought I was going to be watching one of the best films I had seen this year. I could feel all the old magic of Amélie returning. But for all the set pieces and quirky-ness the film inspires, it never really reaches the heights that you would come to expect if you have seen any of Jeunet’s previous work. It just feels flat in places and like it never really gets into gear until the finale. But like I said earlier, despite what I see as weaknesses in the film were more than made up by many of the films moments of ingenuity. And after recent viewings of Precious and Brothers, it was quite refreshing to just see a nice uplifting, genuinely positive film in which the little guys win.

So my fellow fleapitters, I open the forum up to you. Do you agree with anything I have said? Disagree? What were your thoughts on the film? I will leave you with several questions to ponder…

* Did you think the film was a case of style over substance or are his OTT techniques justified by the story?

* Did it have anything serious to say about the buying and selling of arms?

* In what ways was the film like or unlike any of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s previous films?

* I said that Jeunet is one of the most visionary directors working today, can you think of anyone else that is equal or surpasses him?

* Do you still think that it was Audrey Tautou on the video store? Come on! Really?
Right, until next time, I will bid you adieu. The next Fleapit evening is on March 13^th in Hackney and the theme is ‘Time Travel’. Go to the voting section and vote for your choice of film. So far Dreamcatchers is leading the way and my preferred options of Primer and Donnie Darko and languishing far behind.

Hmmm, I wonder if I still have Kim Jong Il’s number….

2010-02-25T04:03:00.000-08:00

Taken from Darkhorizons.com

Deadline Hollywood reports that Paramount Pictures and Ben Stiller are re-teaming for a sequel to the 2001 cult comedy smash "Zoolander".

Actor-turned-writer Justin Theroux, who penned "Tropic Thunder" and "Iron Man 2", will co-write the script with Stiller and potentially direct the follow-up.

The hope is Owen Wilson will return but nothing is set, though Jonah Hill ("Superbad," "Get Him to the Greek") is apparently in negotiations to play the villain.

Zoolander part 2? Nice. All together now, let's see your best Magnums...

2010-02-25T03:54:00.000-08:00

Here is the second trailer for the remake of "A Nightmare on Elm Street". I have to say, I quite like it. I don't particularly like the look of the kids, they're just a little too glossy for my liking, but as for everything else, I think it looks pretty promising. Freddy looks great, sounds great and doesn't appear to be copying Robert Englund and could quite well make this his own. I also love how all the elements from previous films are there, especially in the dinner with the neon green and red lights. You know Freddy's-a-coming!

Any thoughts?

Movie Review - The Wolfman

2010-02-23T13:09:00.000-08:00

The Wolfman is a film I have been interested in seeing for a long time, but not for entirely positive reasons. The Wolfman is a remake of George Waggner’s 1941 original The Wolf Man, and by all accounts was due to be released in cinemas in 2007. Then in February 2009. Then in November 2009. Finally being released this month. The scheduling conflicts were not the only problems for The Wolfman. The films original director, Mark Romanek, left only 4 weeks before the start of principal photography to be replaced by Joe Johnston. Johnston’s last film was 7 years ago. Add to this the need to film extensive reshoots due to gaping holes in the plot, all did not look good for The Wolfman.

I was lucky enough to see some of the re-shoots as we were shooting some scenes for Harry Potter at Pinewood at the same time, and I thought the sets looked great. Needless to say, for all these reasons I was intrigued to see it and decided to be positive about the film. But with so many changes and distractions, could the film live up to it’s hype actually be any good? Well, for me, the answer is yes and no.

The film is a loose remake of the 1941, in which traveling actor Lawrence Talbot, Benicio Del Toro, returns to his family home after receiving word about his brother’s death. Mystery surrounds the murder, with talk of a bear or some kind of beast being the main suspect. Talbot decides to investigate himself, but is also attacked by the beast and subsequently transforms into a lycanthropic monster at the sight of a full moon, devouring local villagers. Rather than embrace his curse, he hates what he has becomes and once caught and taken to a London mental institution, he tries to figure out where the curse came from, and how he can change it. Once back in the countryside, he confronts his father played by Anthony Hopkins, and with the help of Gwen Conliffe played by Emily Blunt, he tries to confront his curse head on and take back his humanity.

Despite what you might have heard, The Wolfman is not a terrible movie. It was refreshing to see a horror film that has decided to take it roots from the classic horror films of old. The look and feel of the film is great. Being set in a quaint little village with huge meandering trees, grand old houses and weary villagers, one cannot help but think of films such as The Wolfman, Dracula and Frankenstein. Here, the sets and locations act as characters themselves. The last film I can think of that did this so well was Tim Burton’s Sleepy Hollow.

The Special Effects in particular are another plus of the film. Everyone will always compare movie werewolf transformations to John Landis’ An American Warewolf in London (and rightly so) but Rick Baker’s wolf man effects have certainly pushed the genre forward. The transformation scenes certainly display the pain and agony that it must feel to take part in such a change. You can literally hear the bones cracking and see Benicio Del Toro’s body twist and contorts as his body structure changes. We see his human teeth pushed out of his mouth to be replaced by the teeth of the beast. You can really feel and believe the pain he is going through as he succumbs to the demon within. Director Joe Johnston provides an interesting touch by giving The Wolfman the options of running on two legs like a man, or acting like the beast it is by running like the wind on all fours. Although the transformations aren’t on screen long enough, nor if truth be told is the wolf, you cannot wait for the next full moon to see the beast again. And here in lies the films main problem.

Everything in between the wolfman transforming, prowling or killing, The Wolfman is just….well, just a little bit boring. It’s a werewolf film, so it is not like there is going to be any confusion or ambiguity in what is going to happen in the story, but everything else just feels rushed and slightly incoherent.

I can’t believe I am going to say this, but I believe the guiltiest party in this is Sir Anthony Hopkins. Who knows what direction he was given, but he is so lethargic in his performance that it feels like he is either supposed to be drunk or tired. He just meanders his way through his scenes like he doesn’t really want to be there. Like I said, maybe this was the directors intention to contrast his mannerisms from his human form to his lycan form, but I really doubt this was the case. The rest of the cast do as well as they can with the below par script. Benicio Del Toro is fully believable as The Wolfman as he has that crazy look in his eye before he even gets bitten. Emily blunt is great as the beautiful damsel but fails miserably to find any real connection with Del Toro, and Hugo Weaving does his best impression of Dick Van Dyke with an over the top cockney accent, as the suave Inspector Abberline. To be fair to him, he does have a cracking mustache.

If you take into consideration the sheer number of problems The Wolfman overcame just to make it to the screen, it has to be seen as a success. While there are many plusses to come out of the film, such as the wolfman effects, it ultimately feels like a mishmash of incoherent scenes that are missing that little something extra. And like the film itself, it ultimately feels like it could have done with just a little more bite. And yes, that was supposed to be a joke. I apologise in advance.

Martin Scorsese and Robert De Niro to reunite?

2010-02-15T17:44:00.001-08:00

Tis' a very good day my friends, a very good day indeed. The word on the street from the Berlin Film Festival, is that Robert De Niro and Martin Scorsese are planning to reunite for a 10th time, returning to the world of the mafia. A world in which they work so well.
Speaking at the premiere of his Lastest film, Shutter Island, in which he is working with Leonardo DiCaprio for the 4th time, Scorsese said:

"Bob De Niro (and I) are talking about something that has to do with that world, there's no doubt about that. We're working on something like that, but it's from the vantage point of older men looking back, none of this running around stuff." - Reuters. The last film the pair collaborated on was 1995's Casino.

For some reason, the rumour mill has been suggesting that the next time Scorsese and
De Niro team up, will be to ressurect one of their classic creations in Travis Bickle for a Taxi Driver sequel - though I can't seem to find any proof of this anywhere. After searching imdb pro, it seems like the most possible scenerio at the moment would be a film called I Heard You Paint Houses to be released in 2011. Again, according to the imdb, the story is as follows:

"[Based on the book by Steve Zaillian] A mob hit man recalls his possible involvement with the slaying of Jimmy Hoffa."

Considering what Scorsese has said, this sounds likely to be the most plausible option. I can't imagine why he would want to revisit some of his best work. Like the old saying goes "If it isn't broken, don't fix it". I can understand if Robert De Niro wanted to go back, however. But he should leave his greatest roles well alone. If it is to be I Heard You Paint Houses, i think sounds like a great project for everyone. Leonardo DiCaprio as a younger De Niro, anyone?

So, to conclude, i would like to get a poll going. What is your favourite Scorsese - De Niro collaboration and why?

Answers on a postcard please...

Movie Review - A Serious Man

2010-02-15T06:53:00.000-08:00

There are generally two types of Coen brothers film. On the one hand you have your comedies. They are extremely dark in tone and humour, but are still comedies none the less. Raising Arizona, Intolerable Cruelty and O’ Brother Where art Thou? are perfect examples. Then you have your more serious type of Coen Brothers film. Blood Simple, No Country For Old Men and The Man Who Wasn’t There. A Serious Man is smack bang in the middle of these two styles. It is humourous, without being too funny, it is serious, without being depressing, and it might well be my new favourite Coen Brothers film.

The film centres around Larry Gopnik, played by Michael Sthulberg, who is going through some what of a mid-life crisis. The film begins with him getting a medical. His son is in trouble for listening to rock music. His wife asks for a divorce because she is involved with another man, even though there is no “whoopsy doopsy” involved. All of this taking place in the first 10 mintues of the film. What follows is his journey to find his place in life and his attempts to be closer to his family even though his wife is pushing him further and further away. He has to deal with his childlike older brother, problems with his job, his lust for his next door neighbour and his distant children. Not too mention his money problems due to his impending divorce. This is Larry's test.

I know I am a bit late in writing about A Serious Man - I just never got around to seeing it as I live in Watford and they don’t tend to show many art films (though they are still showing Alvin and the Chipmunks 2, I kid you not!) - but I am glad I finally caught it as I thought it was brilliant. I just loved everything about it. The direction, the writing, the acting, the production design, the music,…absolutely everything. All the elements that make the Coen brothers modern great auteurs were present. For example, the seemingly normal characters with abnormal undertones, or odd characters and plain strange incidents. And just like most Coen Brothers films, people talk a great deal, but no one really listens.

On the surface, A Serious Man is a film about faith as we follow Larry through the film whilst he feels like he is being tested. He tries to talking to Rabbis for advice but they are no help. Larry is losing his faith just as his son is about to get his. Larry is a strange mix by being deeply religious but a man of science at the same. When we first see Larry teach, he is describing Schrödinger’s 1935 hypothetical experiment that consisted of a cat in a sealed box with a vial of poison that could break at any random time. Until the box was opened, since no one knew whether or not the poison had been released, the cat was considered both dead and alive at the same time. This is how we feel about Larry. He is alive, yet he is dead. He cannot find his faith. His family treat him as if he isn’t there even though he wants to be and no one is taking him seriously. As Larry gets his life back together again, you feel he might have finally found the right path. It appears as if his wife will take him back, his son has been confirmed and his job is safe. Unfortunately for Larry, in his fails final, and probably fatal, test he caves in to monetary pressures and decides to take a bribe. At this precise moment, the phone rings. It’s his doctor. He wants him to come in right away. What will happen? Like Larry, we don’t know. Like Schrödinger’s cat, he is both dead and yet very much alive at the same time. One thing we do know however, is that a storm is coming.

Every shot in the film feels like it has a purpose and some resonance behind it. Even though the film is slow and well crafted, there is never a point where you feel bored or like you want to do anything other than stare at the screen to see what is coming next. Every camera angle intrigues you. Whether it be a blurred haze of pot smokers, or the slow crafted long shot looking into the head Rabbi’s office.

We are purposely not told what year the film is set in, but it is comfortable middle America where most of the Coen Brothers work take place. Similarly to Fargo, or The Man Who Wasn’t There, we are presented with the typical white picket fence houses and blue skies, but deep down all is not well in most peoples lives. In the surreal nature of A Serious Man, dreams are blurred with reality. Whether it be conversations with Koreans, his sexy lone neighbour to his left or Rabbi’s reciting Jefferson Airplane, there is something going on beneath the façade of humility.

Michael Sthulberg is excellent as Larry Gopnik. He is indeed the serious man while everyone around him appears to be losing their cool or appear to be slightly off key. It is heart breaking to him constantly try and do the right thing. You really feel his pain as he tries to do what’s best, but much to the credit of Michael Sthulberg, it can be infuriating watching him do so. You just want to scream at the screen “STOP! STOP IT! YOU DON’T HAVE TO PAY FOR YOUR WIFE’S NEW LOVER’S FUNERAL! YOU DON’T HAVE TO BE SO NICE ALL THE TIME!”

There were some great performances from the supporting cast. Larry’s brother, Arthur, is a loveable but flawed buffoon. The kids are believable. ‘Curse bus boy’ had me in fits everytime he was on the screen and his son, who is his parallel in the film, does a good job at being spoilt and cares about nothing except weed, TV and music. But it is Fred Melamed who excels as the new love of Larry’s wife, Sy Abelman. Melamed exudes charm, authority and at times sleaziness. He doesn’t even need to be on screen to cast a presence. Even when we only hear him on the phone it is still a joy.

While A Serious Man might not please everyone with it’s surreal nature and quirky characters, not to mention the outright Jewish-ness of the film, I found it a joy reveling in the downright oddities of the film. It is brilliantly crafted, looks great, is perfectly edited and has a great soundtrack and score. Do not be blindly by it’s overt religious nature, as this is a story for everybody, and it asks everyone who watches “How will you deal with your own crisis?” and “How will you cope if you feel you are being tested?”. When that time comes it will ultimately be up to us, but for now, I’ll happily watch Larry Gopnik go through his. As happy as you can be about that sort of thing, of course.

Lost Recap – Season 6 Episode 2: What Kate Does

2010-02-15T02:01:00.001-08:00

By Dean Crawford

Last weeks episode ‘LAX – Parts 1 and 2’ were an interesting affair. It was heavily plot driven and full of action. Whilst the episode answered a lot of questions, as you would imagine, it also raised several more. Needless to say I was very excited about this week’s episode ‘What Kate Does’. That was until I finally twigged that this episode would be about my least favourite character, Kate. Then after 5 minutes, I lost all hope, as it would also follow my second least favourite character, Claire. Oh the joy! I know there is a lot of hate on the inter-web for Kate and the way she can come across as heartless in the show, and she gets a bad rap from a lot of die hards for the holy-trinity love triangle. I don’t really care too much for that either, but that’s not the reason I dislike her. I just think her story is boring. As for Claire, I do actually find her story really interesting. The whole first season “you alone must raise this baby” thing I liked. I just can’t stand Emilie de Ravin. She is so whiney and acts hysterical in every single thing she does. And what is the deal with her accent? I know she lived in Australia for nearly twenty years, but her Aussie accent sounds fake, with hints of American thrown in which led me to think she was American. But then you see her in things like Brick, and her American accent sounds fake! Hers isn’t as bad as her mothers accent on the show though. She is supposed to be an Aussie, but keeps on running into hints of Eliza Doolittle! “Ell-ohhhh DOC-TAR SHIP-ERRRRD, moi’ glass o’water is your sister…ya flaming mungrel” Speaking of fake accents, don’t get me started on the portrayal of English accents on Lost. JUST GET A BLOODY ENGLISH PERSON TO PLAY THE ROLE!! Phew. No that’s over, onto the episode…

The episode begins with a close up on feet hurrying in the caves as John Lennon races to the Japanese leader and tells him that “He’s alive!”. The look of shock on Dogen’s face is palpable and we know instantly that this is going to be a big deal. Sayid awakes to the excitement of everyone in the cave except Miles who still can’t understand his journey. Miles can tell something is up, as last week he couldn’t sense anything from Sayid after he died. Jack tells Sayid straight up that he died. Kate can’t fathom how this is even possible, (but apparently the fact that they can travel through time isn’t that much of an issue) but Sawyer isn’t surprised at all and his first thought is escaping. Perfect cue for a flashback on Kate.

Kate’s flash sideways is fairly straightforward but there are a few things to look into. Firstly, Kate is still the same in this time line. She is still running, still shouting, still getting into trouble. As she orders the cab driver to speed off, she makes sure Claire stays with her, but something interesting happens when she sees Jack. There is a long, knowing glance of recognition to her face. It might be because of the fact she recognized him as the guy she stole the pen from on the plane, but I think we can safely deduce after Jack’s recognition of Desmond last week, that the Losties are remembering each other, and are remember things from their other lives. The question that needs to be asked then, is why wouldn’t she have recognized him on the plane? Creative reasons? I read an interesting theory that suggested that in their original time line, Kate and Jack hadn’t yet met each other at this point and shared that moment on the beach stitching up Jack. Therefore their parallel universe hadn’t kicked in yet. So by the time she sees Jack in the taxi, they would met each other on the beach, hence the recognition. But then you could argue why does Kate feel need to help Claire give birth like she did in season one when this also wouldn’t have happened for weeks? I’m thinking destiny is destiny, and no matter what may have happened before, the end game is the same for everybody. So no matter what, Kate will always be involved with Claire and Aaron.

Kate disposes of Claire and manages to find another ex-com who just so happens to understand the complexities of removing handcuffs. Lucky for her! Even luckier for Claire though, is that Kate happens to be driving by as she is waiting for a bus to see the prospective adopters who haven’t come to pick her up. Unfortunately for Claire, they have ditched her so it appears Claire will have to raise the baby herself. This again raises similarities to her on story in Season one. If you recall, it was the Psychic, Richard Malkin, who insisted that Claire raised the baby herself. When he felt like this might not happen, he bought her a ticket to LA as he knew of a couple that would adopt the baby. This is why she was on the plane in the first place. We were lead to believe that Malkin knew the plane would crash, hence forcing Claire to raise Aaron herself. Malkin later admitted he was a fraud to Mr. Ecko when he visited his daughter who drowned. But I think this was for Ecko’s benefit and is a psychic. As for this timeline? We are still yet to find out what brought Claire to the island.

Fate rears its ugly head as Claire goes into labour forcing Kate to see her through labour just like she did on the island. And destiny is at work once again as Ethan is a doctor at the hospital and will take care of Aaron before he is born. Under duress, Claire blurts out Aaron’s name for the first time. It just came to her. So it seems Aaron’s destiny was to always be named so, and to always have Kate and Ethan involved in his birth. And it seems that Claire’s destiny, is to scream, shout and be hysterical every chance she gets.

The police arrive to look for Kate, but Claire throws them off the scent. The two biggest things to come out of this scene, and the whole flash sideways in my opinion, are A) Kate tells Claire that she should raise the baby herself, which I think she will now do. And B) Kate brings up the possibility that she may be innocent. This could be Kate’s attempt at trying to con Claire to get her onboard somehow, but as we have already seen in this timeline, things are drastically different. Take Hugo for example. He is now the luckiest man alive, which is the total opposite from his original timeline. So maybe Kate is innocent. I still feel like she would have had to have done something wrong to have the Feds after her, but something is definitely different.

As Kate leaves, one thought remained in my head the whole time, which was “would we see another Kate and Claire reunion?” If the characters are all going to repeat their actions over and over again no matter what, then doesn’t Kate have to be the one to assist in Aaron’s birth?

Now, back on the island. Sayid is alive, but not for much longer you would think after the look like Sawyer gave him. Sawyer is obviously deeply upset because if the ‘Iraqi torturer who shoots kids’ deserves a second chance, why not Juliet? There might be a philosophical answer to that question, and one that many people theorized back from day one. If you know your bible, and I don’t, Revelation 21:27 states that nothing unclean will enter Heaven. To cleanse oneself you have to enter purgatory, which is a lot how the island feels. What if Sawyer is wrong in thinking that Sayid has been given a second chance whilst Juliet has been left to die. What if Juliet has been allowed to pass on as she has come to terms with everything she has done and has absolved herself. She made amends for all her sins by sacrificing her own life in pushing the reset button and detonating the bomb. She has served her purpose and is allowed to die, much in the same way Michael wasn’t allowed to leave/die until he fulfilled his purposed and sacrificed himself. Sayid was terrified last week of dying, and was sure he was going to hell. So what if Sayid still has one more task to complete before he can be let go? Now I don’t believe that the island is purgatory itself, but the allusions that are being made and the similarities are striking.

Sayid’s joy at returning from the dead is short lived however, as the other’s have plans for him and need to ask a few questions. Unfortunately for Sayid, their style of questioning is unlike anything you would find Bamber Gascoigne attempting on University challenge, as it involves black ash, electrocuting the nipples and a hot poker on the chest. Now I am sure there are a few people reading this who would pay for a service like that, but our man Sayid is faithful to Nadia. The ensuing fight gives Sawyer the chance to escape as he tells them he is leaving and there is nothing they can do to stop him. This scene is very significant as it is the first time Dogen publicly speaks English, adding gravitas to his words. The fact that Sawyer tells them he’s leaving and they just let him is also significant, but more on that later. Sawyer tells Kate not to come after him. So this means that Kate is going to go after him. Yawn.

But in the words of poor old Sayid “Why…? Why are you doing this?”. What are these tests for? What do they want to know and how will their methods help them achieve their results? I think the second they blew the dust on him, we could tell that they wanted to see if he had returned from the dead “bad”. The ash has been used to keep the smoke monster out, so were they trying to test if the smoke monster is inside him? I can’t think what the electricity or hot poker where for, maybe to test his reaction to pain? The smoke monster can’t travel through the Dharma Initiative’s sonar fence, so maybe electricity is a way of catching him out. Either way, it turns out that Sayid is sick. He has been infected or “claimed” as Dogen puts it. If it is Jacob or The Man in Black inside Sayid, there have been hints to this already. Sayid just isn’t acting like himself at the moment. I found it very strange when Sayid became frightened and scared, not like his usual bad-ass self when they were torturing him. The way he said “I don’t have any secrets” seemed rather odd, therefore leads me to believe he does have secrets! Tell us those secrets, Sayid. TELL US!

Jack goes to find answers from Dogen and John Lennon, but in typical Lost fashion, he doesn’t get a straight answer. He tells the guards to let him through and they part for him like Moses parted the red sea so can talk to Dogen who finally reveals himself. Their conversation goes as follows.

Jack: Who are you?
Dogen: My name is Dogen.
Jack: Are you from here, the island?
Dogen: I was brought here, like everyone else.
Jack: What do you mean, brought here?
Dogen: You know exactly what I mean…

I find this conversation interesting because why should Jack know exactly what he means? Jack was brought to the island by Desmond. He subsequently came back because of his new found faith due to John Locke. Didn’t the rest of them come to the island through the Dharma Initiative? Or is he talking about Jacob bringing him to the island? Dogen seems to be quite old school, so I get the impression that he might have been around for a long time. Longer than most. So did the black Rock bring him here? I see him as a Richard type character?

They tell him that Sayid is sick and give him the pill that will make him better. I wasn’t sure whether to believe him or not as I knew something was up with Sayid. They tell Jack he has to be the one who gives Sayid the pill as he wouldn’t accept it from them, and it has to be his choice to take it. Choice seemed to be an issue flowing through the whole episode. Sawyer wanted to leave, so they let him. Kate has to be the one to bring Sawyer back as it has to be his own choice to return. Dogen and John Lennon wanted Jack to come and see them on his own. Sayid has to take the pill willingly. This has been a reoccurring theme for a while now, because if you remember when it came to Ben’s spinal surgery, he couldn’t just force Jack to do it. He wanted him to “want to do it”. Again, when Ben didn’t want to let Jack and Juliet leave in season 3, he couldn’t stop them. But John Locke blew up the sub for him. I think there is something going on in the island that has to do with free will and choices and influence, but I am not too sure what that is yet.

Jack does not trust the others, and thankfully demands some answers. In showing Dogen an alternative method of Seppuku, he swallows the pill himself to gaze Dogens reaction. Yep, it was poison all along! Take that Dogen! The conversation after goes as follows.

Dogen: We believe he has been claimed.
Jack: Claimed? By What?
Dogen: There is a darkness growing in him, and once it reaches his
heart everything your friend once was will be gone.
Jack: How can you be sure of that?
Dogen: Because it happened to your sister!

DUM DUM DUM!!!! I thought this was a great way to end the temple part of the episode, as you would almost be forgiven for forgetting that Jack and Claire are siblings. I’m hoping the return of Claire will mean that we are finally going to get a meeting between Jack and his father. It better bloody happen otherwise there is a very strongly worded letter that is going to be sent to somebody, I can tell you!!

The way Dogen was talking about Sayid’s symptoms was very similar to the way Rousseau used to describe her crew when they first arrived on the island. We even got to see this first hand last season when Jin ran into Rosseau and her crew during his adventures in time-travel. They too became “sick” and “infected” and it seemed as if a “darkness” came over them. This was caused by an encounter with the smoke monster. So is it the smoke monster’s fault again that Sayid is being possessed? This sounds a lot like what Richard said to Kate when he cured Ben. He said he would never be the same again. It looks as if the same can be said of Sayid. Is it the island as a whole that causes the sickness? The spring? Jacob? How did it also happen to Claire? Did she die at the barracks back in season 4 then come back to life infected? Once again, more and more questions.

While al this is going on at the temple, Kate escapes from the others to find Sawyer. She reveals that her intentions are to find Claire and try to make up for what she has done. Jin’s intentions are to find his wife. Apart from the game of cat and mouse, one thing of interest is said. Aldo, whose sole purpose was to act like a total arse hole the whole episode so we would be happy when he got shot, wants to kill Jin. He partner, Justin, tells him not too as he might be “one of them”. Hmm, very interesting? One of whom? Someone special? Is this going back to the days of Jacob and his lists? Does “them” mean the people on Jacob’s list? The people Jacob has seen during the years? Are they “candidates” like Ilana spoke of last year? We know that Sayid’s name was on the list given to Dogen, and we presume the rest of our Losties names are on there also during their role call. It seems that Sawyers name is on that list also, as this would explain his desire for him to stay at the temple. If so, what could Jacob want them for? Is there an end game that requires them all and if so, what is it? I couldn’t fathom a guess at the moment, as I’m not even sure if Jacob is one of the good guys are not.

Just as Jin was about to get shot, Aldo and Justin get smoked. By who? Well none other than Claire! There are several questions to be asked about Claire. For example, where has she been this time? Has she been traveling through time with the rest of the Losties? What about this darkness that has taken over her? Is she good or bad? To be honest, I don’t really care. I just want to see how her reappearance has affected the people around her ie. Christian Shepherd, Locke, Jacob.

So, not a terrible episode, but not a great one either. The lack of Locke (or Flocke as he is now known as Fake + Locke) was a real downer but we still got some more answers there are some more questions raised.

1. Where has Claire been this whole time? How did she learn so many of Rosseau’s tricks?
2. In the alternate timeline, what brought Claire to LA?
3. Will we see a Kate and Claire reunion?
4. Who or what has claimed Sayid? What is the darkness?
5. What does “one of them” mean?
6. How will it end?

How will it end? How will it end? How will it end……

Lost Recap and Analysis – LAX parts 1 and 2

2010-02-15T01:59:00.001-08:00

by Dean Crawford

Lost is back, Baby!! As I’ve previously posted (http://thekinkyafro.tumblr.com/#365037822 ), I was very excited for Lost’s return. Now it’s back, and we have 18 episodes to go on what has been one of the biggest TV shows of the last 10 years. I’m not saying it is the best, but it has definitely been one of the biggest. You either love it or hate. And no matter what you say, it has had a such an influence on most TV watchers.

Right, i’m going to quickly recap the first two episodes, give a few thoughts, share a few theories that are going around and hopefully we can add our own thoughts and have a bit of online discussion about it and throughout the season each week.

I liked the fact that right away we were shown the affect of the bomb going off. We were right back where we started and shown an alternate reality. One in which Oceanic flight 815 didn’t crash. We have had flash-backs, flash-forwards, now have the “flash-sideways”. I personally like this idea. I have always wondered what the losties lives would have been like if they crash hadn’t of happened, now we are set to find out. Right at the start of the episode we are introduced to all our favourite characters once again. (As a side note, it appears as if the Lost producers theory could be steeped in reality and I think partially based on string theory. Have a butchers at this - http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/paralleluni.shtml )

Jack’s back - but this time with longer hair than he had 3 years ago. Has Jack changed so much in this alternate reality, that he no longer shaves his head? Or is it that he has to keep it long for continuity in the on-island story line?

Desmond - It was nice seeing him so soon, but sadly i feel that will be the last we see of him. In this time line he is married. To Penny? Quite possibly. If you feel showing us the island submerged in water is confirmation that the bomb went off in this time-line, then there would have been no Widmore to screw with desmonds life. No Widmore, no boat race. It was interesting to see how Desmond’s appearance sparked a sense of deja vu in Jack. It’s like he remembers something from his past, or his alternate reality. Will this happen for all the characters? As a side note, the book he was reading was “Haroun and the Sea of Stories” by Salman Rushdie which, accordiang to Wikipedia, is about a city so old that it’s name has been forgotten. Sound familiar? There’s also “an electromagnetic device intended to destroy the ocean” which again fits it with what has just happened in the finale of Season 5.

Rose – Shorter hair but it’s the same wise old Rose. Did anyone else get the feeling that she has an idea about what’s going on? She seemed a little bit defensive when Jack asked if she had seen Desmond. Maybe she knows how special Desmond has been in the past. Or maybe Desmond was never really there but she didn’t want to engage in his craziness. She also looked very happy. Is her cancer cured, or did it never happen?

Locke is the same old Locke unfortunately – Lying about what a great hunter-gatherer he is when we know that the people on the walkabout wouldn’t let him on the plane. Or did they? Ooooooohhhhh???

Hurley - In this alternate reality, Hurley is now the luckiest man alive and loves the money he has won. I’m guessing it’s because the island in this timeline has been destroyed so he never got a chance to use the numbers from the island to play on the lottery.

Kate – Still running. It seems as if she is still the same and is on the exact same path as before. Kate bores me. Zzzz. Next!

Sawyer – Sawyer seems less angry. Did he kill the real Sawyer in Australia. I’m guessing he wouldn’t have met Jacob in this time-line, therefore didn’t get the pen and the motivation to keep writing his letter. He seems a bit too nice if you ask me and I think he was eyeing up Hurley for a con.

Jin and Sun - Good news for Sun! The bomb didn’t go off so now she can get back with the old misogynistic Jin back who berates her in public for showing the slightest amount of flesh. Hooray! Were they still on the same timeline? Was Sun still going to leave Jin. No English! No English? Does this mean she never cheated on Jin?

The Cameos – It was good seeing Charlie back again, still in seemingly pissed off rock star mode as he tells Jack “I was supposed to die”. Yeah, choking on a bag of heroin without even getting the full benefits of shooting some up…great way to go! Boone was back, but without his sister which was a shame. But then again, I doubt she would have been able to wear her bikini on the plane so who cares! Charlie was on the same journey, but not Boone. Hmm, interesting. Claire came back in the end but we didn’t see if she was pregnant or not. Artz was back for a cameo as was “Froghurt”.

But you know who was missing? Michael and Walt. Not to mention Ecko, Anna-Lucia, the big gaping plot hole that is Libby. She was in a mental home with hurley and gave Desmond his boat for Christ sake! Is there not going to be even the slightest mention of that again? Maybe in this timeline those guys never get on the plane. Or maybe the producers couldn’t afford one too many cameos.

Another thing I’m liking about the sideways plot line, is that it is in keeping with the “Whatever happened, happened” theory. Things are destined to repeat themselves no matter what. There have been so many coincidences during the previous 5 seasons of lost. It looks like things are on a loop, and no matter what timeline or path the characters take, it is their destiny to meet each other. In this new, alternate timeline, we still have Jack and Desmond coming together. Boone and Locke still form a bond and he even says “if this thing crashes, I’m sticking with you”. The FBI agent still gets his head bashed in. Claire and Kate have still come together though we don’t yet know if this will involve Aaron. Though some people are special and can remember certain things, hence the déjà vu, while others just follow there designed scripts. Is this what the producers had intended the whole time? Or have they just been reading the imdb Lost forums and decided to pick whatever theory they though fit the best and decided to take the show in that direction for the final season?

Righto, briefly onto the on-island stuff.

Hurley – sees Jacob and he tells them where to go.

Juliet – dies AGAIN! Though she does have a Charlotte moment where she appears to be traveling through time as she is about to die. “We should get coffee…”. One thing I’m wondering here is that if she did set the bomb off and destroy the hatch, just like Desmond did at the end of Season 2, why has she been killed and Desmond wasn’t? Will she back in the future?

Miles – Still talking to the dead which I like to see. Tells Sawyer Juliet said “It worked!”. So is she a ghost floating around now?

We then come across another set of OTHERS. Yep, there are more others out there. These guys have no time for small talk and would have killed our group unless Hurley mentioned Jacob. This set of others seem far removed from the Dharma others that lived in the barracks. Do they even know of each other? What have they been doing this whole time? The guy with glasses looked a little like John Lennon, right? This group seem like an original set of others, but then Cindy the flight attendant is there so I am not too sure about that.

Hurley’s guitar case – we find out it was carrying an ankh, which is the symbol of eternal life. Inside is a note which pretty much says save Sayid.

Well, they didn’t do too good a job of that, as they actually drown him instead. It seemed weird, but I didn’t think jack did a very good job of trying to bring Sayid back to life. I remember in Season one he spent about 10 minutes trying to bring Charlie back, and he had been dead much longer than Sayid.

So, is Sayid really dead? Is he still the same Sayid? Is he Jacob? Was the hourglass used because that was the length of time someone has to be purged before they can be reborn? Is he Jacob? If he isn’t Jacob, what about these risks? Will he turn evil like Ben? I’m looking forward to finding out.

And last but not least, the scene with “Locke”. It was awesome seeing what most people had been theorizing, that this Locke/Man in black was in fact the smoke monster. He also tells us his motives. He simply wants to go home. Where is his home? We learned last year that the smoke monster lives in the temple and that it is a security system. This is puzzling, because once the others in the temple find out the man in black is back (I’m sure there is a song in there somewhere…), they go crazy and start laying down the black ash we saw at the cabin to protect themselves. Why has it now changed? I’m guessing that without a human form, he is controllable, like we saw with Ben in season 4. Maybe the temple is it’s home, and he wants it back.

Why couldn’t the smoke monster have done this before though? And was the man in black living in the cabin the whole time? If so, how did he become trapped with Ash in the cabin? When did he break out as he’s been flying around judging people for ages now. Who broke the ash circle? And if Ben and John have been looking for the cabin this whole time, does that mean it was the man in black, and not Jacob in there every time we have visited it?

More and more questions raised and not a lot of time left to answer them in. Some other thoughts/Questions

• Have all the flashbacks/forwards thus far been alternate realities also?
• Is it 2004?
• Is Jack’s cut on his neck real?
• How different from their original timeline is this flash sideways timeline for each character?
• Will we see Desmond, Rose, Bernard, Charlie and Boone again?
• Why do we still have the 2004-on island storyline? I like seeing the what might have happened storyline, but why are we still on the island if Juliet’s effort to blow up the bomb worked?

So, this season we have two realities existing side by side, but which one will prevail. I really can’t wait to see how they wrap everything up. Only 16 more episodes to go!

So, what do you all think? Any thoughts, discussions, ideas, suggestions? Agree with anything I’ve said? Disagree? Think I’m a full of sh…?

Peace.

Lost Recap and Analysis – LAX parts 1 and 2

2010-02-15T01:59:00.000-08:00

Movie Review - Precious

2010-02-15T01:58:00.000-08:00

By Dean Crawford

Now I am no stranger to a tough life. I was born on the mean streets of Canning Town, East London and subsequently moved to the even meaner leafy suburbs of Romford, Essex. We only had the one parking space each on my road. Times were tough. My school had a cap of 25 people per class and we could do as many extra curricular activities as we liked. Tines were hard. I remember one particular time when I was around 7 or 8, I had to endure a grueling 45 minute journey to Toys ‘R’ Us. It was so hot in that car, it was like torture. We finally arrived and I couldn’t wait to get my hands on a new Leonardo from The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle’s. They sold out and I ended up getting a Raphael. How I despaired. Oh yes my friends, I thought I had it pretty rough growing up and one could argue that the song “Hard Knock Life” was written about me. That was until I saw the film Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire.

Even though I knew a little bit about Precious before I went to see it, I was simply not prepared for this film at all. The film revolves around Clareece ‘Precious’ Jones. She is an illiterate 16 year old student who is currently pregnant with her second child by her own father. Her first child has Down’s syndrome. Precious is transferred to an “alternative school” and is surrounded by students who have problems of their own. With the help of inspirational teacher Miss. Rain, played by Paula Patton, she is encouraged to express herself through her writing, eventually learning to read and write whilst learning to better herself and become a good mother. But while all this goes on, there is everything else in her life that she has to deal with. People in the street abuse her because of her size. Her mother is angry with her because of the “relationship” with her father. She feels she instigated the molestation so treats her like a piece of dirt every chance she gets and is only concerned about her own well-being. Her mother beats and also molests Precious, and at one point tries to kill Precious and her new grandson. To top it all off, she finds out that her father has died of the AIDS virus and has infected her with HIV. Still with me?

First things first, despite the bleak nature of the film, Precious is a brilliantly acted piece that invites us to look at the more horrific aspects of our society head on and watch to see how one can deal with these atrocities. In a perverse way, Precious is a story of hope, of never giving in despite the odds, and shows us that with the right encouragement, anything is possible. Rather than let the cruel hand of fate decide her outcome, all Precious wants is to be able to read and write, so she can be a good mother to her children and this says a lot about the films moral message.

The performances are mesmerizing and it is no surprise that both Gabourey ‘Gabby’ Sidibe as Precious, and Mo’Nique as her mother, Mary, have been nominated for Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress respectively at the Oscars. Sidibe is wonderfully poignant as Precious, who has the weight of a world resting squarely on her face. Her weight will be brought up at most opportunities no doubt, but it is her body language and facial expressions that really allow you to feel her pain. She is like a cooped up ball of rage that is just waiting to explode, and it isn’t until one of the final scenes where she finally releases all this pent up aggression that you realize how good Sidibe is.

And no matter what you might think of her Oscar credentials compared to some other actresses, there is no doubt that in this role, Mo’Nique is brilliant. She is just so evil and disturbing as the mother. Every glance, every puff of her cigarette, every sneer just oozes hatred. Even though she just stood back as her partner raped and impregnated her daughter, and even though she beats and molests her own child, Mo’Nique brings a tiny amount of vulnerability to her performance that makes you feel sorry for Mary, if that is at all possible. There is a part of her character that let’s you realize that she is just as disturbed and upset as anyone else in the film. In some perverse way, she feels as if she is the victim and it was her daughter that took away her man. She is actually jealous that he wanted to have sex with her own daughter and that he gave her more children. Every time she looks at one of her grandchildren, she can’t help but feel hurt and rejected. For a split second, you too can almost feel her pain and feel sorry for her. This culminates in the final scene in which Maria Carey’s caseworker mediates a meeting with Mary and Precious. You’ll have to watch this scene for yourself, but I think it should win Mo’Nique the best supporting actress award. It is quite brilliant and you do feel for her. But then you take a step back, listen to what she is actually saying and remember for all her misgivings, she is still no better than the father as she molests and beats own her child. And after seeing how easily she can change her personality to deceive the welfare office, you fail to believe that anything she is saying could be real and her emotions are nothing but a lie.

Another positive to this film is the directing from Lee Daniels. I really appreciated what he did with the material, and how he tried to be original and extremely creative with his directing. Some might say it was flashy and over the top, but I thought it fit perfectly…but then I am a bit of a sucker for great visuals. For example, during Precious’ rape sequence, it could have been so easy to so easy to raise the camera to the sky to not get too involved. But instead we travel inside Precious’ mind and escape with her as she tries to blot out what is taking place. She imagines she’s a movie star signing autographs, or on-stage singing. Or at one point, beamed into a TV show where her mother speaks softly and lovingly. It doesn’t feel like flashy camera work for the sake of it. In only a few shots, and without showing too much, I thought the rape was one of the most harrowing scenes in the film. Precious wants to escape all her harrowing moments during the course of the film into highly stylized reality. So Lee Daniels takes us with her highly stylized way too. That’s not too say that the whole film is like that. There are certain moments where it almost feels like you are watching a documentary. I felt like Lee Daniels let the material dictate his style. His use of music is also another positive I took from the film. There are so many heart-breaking moments that are juxtaposed with hauntingly melodic childish tunes, it’s hard to know how you are supposed to feel.

One of the few negatives of Precious might be the fact that it is a little too onerous, or may seem over the top and unrealistic. You do get a sense watching the film, that there might just be a bit too much going on. She is raped by her dad, she is molested by her mother, has two children by her father, is beaten by her mother, is overweight and the list goes on. The author of the original novel “Push”, has stated that she was once a social worker, so put several stories into Precious, which is why it might seem a little full on for the sake of it. There were a few times a found myself thinking “whatever next?”. But that isn’t necessarily to say that these things don’t exist in one person’s life. Every one of her problems are a direct result of her fathers actions. So even though Precious’ situation might not be a common occurrence, it is by no means implausible.

You could talk for hours about Precious, with several other issues arising that could warrant essays by themselves. But ultimately it is a film which presents it’s viewer with a harsh look at a cruel and alien world. And if the film does feel over the top, or at times like it has become a little too difficult to watch, so what? Surely film as an art form has a duty to not only produce romantic tosh with pretty people (*COUGH* Valentines Day *COUGH*!!) or films that are made purely for money and the sequels (*COUGH* AVATAR *COUGH*!!!) but to challenge and stimulate debate. Surely film is there so we can look into the lives of others and be confronted head on with issues and subjects we wouldn’t necessarily get involved in. It forces us to have an opinion. Despite the harsh world Precious inhabits and the terrible life she leads, the film is still an allegory for hope. It’s about striving to succeed despite all the odds. It shows us that no matter what obstacles are put in front of you, you can still succeed. And if Clareece ‘Precious’ Jones can be positive and try to strive for a better life, surely anyone else out there can too.

Trailer - Four Lions

2010-02-15T01:56:00.000-08:00

Four Lions tells the story of a group of British jihadists who push their abstract dreams of glory to the breaking point. As the wheels fly off, and their competing ideologies clash, what emerges is an emotionally engaging (and entirely plausible) farce. In a storm of razor-sharp verbal jousting and large-scale set pieces, Four Lions is a comic tour de force; it shows that-while terrorism is about ideology-it can also be about idiots. Written by Sundance Film Festival

This is directed by Chris "Brass Eye" Morris. He has a very twisted mind. I can't wait.

Trailer - Cemetary Junction

2010-02-15T01:54:00.001-08:00

Here is the trailer for Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant's new film "Cemetary Junction".

Once thing you notice right away is the lack of jokes, which i think is a good thing. I think Ricky Gervais has been believing his own comedy hype a little too much recently, so it's nice to see him take a step back and let his writing, which is brilliant, do a bit more of the talking.

I think this looks ok. It looks like a throwback to the the kitchen sink era of great british filmmaking...just with much prettier people. As Ricky Gervais told Time Out ‘We wanted some of that blue-collar truth, but with good-looking people and good lighting.’'.

Well, you instantly lose some of that blue collar truth when you add pretty people and fake lights, but i'll come to that in another post...

Trailer - Cemetary Junction

2010-02-15T01:54:00.000-08:00

2010-02-15T01:51:00.000-08:00

Below is a Q&A session with Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof who answer a few questions regarding the premiere of Lost Season 6. Very interesting! But please do not read if you haven’t yet seen the premiere or do not want anything spoiled for you!!

EW: The whole idea of flash-sideways and the plan to use season 6 to show us a world where Oceanic 815 never crashed — how long has that been in the works? Why did you want to do it?
DAMON LINDELOF: It’s been in play for at least a couple of years. We knew that the ending of the time travel season was going to be an attempt to reboot. And as a result, we [knew] the audience was going to come out of the “do-over moment” thinking we were either going start over or just say it didn’t work and continue on. [We thought] wouldn’t it be great if we did both? That was the origin of the story.
CARLTON CUSE: We thought just doing one [of those options] would inherently not be satisfying. Since the very beginning of the show, characters started crossing through each other’s stories. Part of our desire [in season 6] is to show that there’s still this kind of weave, that these characters still would have impacted each other’s lives even without the event of crashing on the Island. Obviously, the big question of the season is going to be: How do these [two timelines] reconcile? However, for the fans who have not watched the show closely, that’s an intact narrative. You can just watch the flash sideways — they stand alone all by themselves. For the fans who are more deeply embedded in the show, you can watch those flash sideways, compare them to what transpired in the flashbacks and go, “Oh, that’s an interesting difference.”
LINDELOF: Right out of the gate, in the first five minutes of the premiere, you get hit over the head with two things that you’re not expecting. The first is that Desmond is on the plane. The second thing that we do is we drop out of the plane and we go below the water and we see that the Island is submerged. What we’re trying to do there is basically say to you, “God bless the survivors of Oceanic 815, because they’re so self-centered, they thought the only effect [of detonating the bomb] was going to be that their plane never crashes.” But they don’t stop to think, “If we do this in 1977, what else is going to affected by this?” So that their entire lives can be changed radically. In fact, it would appear that they’ve sunken the Island. That’s our way of saying, “Keep your eyes peeled for the differences that you’re not expecting.” Some of these characters were still in Australia, but some weren’t. Shannon’s not there. Boone actually says that he tried to get her back. There are all sorts of other people that we don’t see. Where’s Libby? Where’s Ana Lucia? Where’s Eko? These are all the things that you’re supposed to be thinking about. When our characters posited the “What if?” scenario, they neglected to think about what the other effects of potentially changing time might be and we’re embracing those things.

That said, are you saying definitively that detonating Jughead was the event that created this new timeline? Or is that a mystery which the season 6 story will reveal?
LINDELOF: It’s a mystery. A big one.
CUSE: We did have some concern that it might be confusing kind of going into the season. To clear that up a little bit: The archetypes of the characters are the same and that’s the most significant thing. Kate is still a fugitive. If you were to look at the Comic-Con video, for instance, that now comes into play. There was a different scenario in that story. She basically blew up an apprentice plumber as opposed to killing her biological father/stepfather. Those kind of differences exist, but who the characters fundamentally are is the same. If it becomes too confusing for you, you can just follow the flash sideways for what they are. It’s not as though there’s narrative that hangs on the fact that you need to know that this event was different in that world, in the flashback world versus the sideways world. That’s not critical for being able to process the narrative this season.

Is there a relationship between Island reality and sideways reality? Will they run parallel for the remainder of the season? Will they fuse together? Might one fade away?
LINDELOF: For us, the big risk that we’re taking in the final season of the show is basically this very question. [Lindelof then explains the show has replaced the trademark “whoosh!” sound effect marking the segue between Island present story and flashbacks or flash-forwards, thus calling conspicuous attention to the relationship between the Island world and the Sideways world.] This is the critical mystery of the season, which is, “What is the relationship between these two shows?” And we don’t use the phrase “alternate reality,” because to call one of them an “alternate reality” is to infer that one of them isn’t real, or one of them is real and the other is the alternate to being real.
CUSE: But the questions you’re asking are exactly the right questions. What are we to make of the fact that they’re showing us two different timelines? Are they going to resolve? Are they going to connect? Are they going to co-exist in parallel fashion? Are they going to cross? Do they intersect? Does one prove to be viable and the other one not? I think those are all the kind of speculations that are the right speculations to be having at this point in the season.
LINDELOF: But it is going to require patience. We’ve taught the audience how to be patient thus far, so while they’re getting a lot of mythological answers on the island early in the season, this idea of what is the relationship between the two [worlds] is a little bit more of a slow burn.

Did Jughead really sink the Island? And is it possible that the Sideways characters are now caught in a time loop in which they might have to go back in time and fulfill the obligation to continuity by detonating the bomb?
LINDELOF: These questions will be dealt with on the show. Should you infer that the detonation of Jughead is what sunk the island? Who knows? But there’s the Foot. What do you get when you see that shot? It looks like New Otherton got built. These little clues [might help you] extrapolate when the Island may have sunk. Start to think about it. A couple of episodes down the road, some of the characters might even discuss it. We will say this: season 6 is not about time travel. It’s about the implications, the aftermath, and the causality of trying to change the past. But the idea of continuing to do paradoxical storytelling is not what we’re interested in this year.

Have I been Lost without Lost

2010-02-15T01:49:00.000-08:00

Have I been lost without Lost? A love letter…

by Dean Crawford

Oh Lost. Lost, Lost, Lost. You’ve been gone a long time old girl and I have missed you so much. 10 months and counting, in fact. At first I was afraid, I was petrified. Kept thinking I could never live without you by my side. I kept thinking to myself, “have I been lost without you?”. For five years we had been seeing each other on and off. Our relationship was eventful and intense. Even though we would spend a great deal of time together, you were always a complete mystery to me. Just when I thought I had you figured all out, you would flip our relationship on it’s head and keep me guessing.

Every year, like clockwork, you would leave me. But I didn’t mind as each time I knew you would come back. You always came back. But this last time you ended with me rather abruptly, and some would say rather unfairly. You just left me in a confused haze with so many unanswered questions. You would come to see me at all crazy times and wasn’t quite sure who you were supposed to be. You would constantly try to reinvent yourself and change your style. Were you this retro 70s chick, or were you from the here and now? You just couldn’t make up your mind so you left to decide once and for all who you really were. But sadly, this left me alone. I was all by myself and all I could do was think about our relationship. About specific incidents and how early on you would tell me one thing, but would actually mean something else. I constantly worried that on certain occasions you made me promises and laid the foundations and rules of our relationship, only for years later to pretend that never happened or you really meant something else. I wondered why I ever even started with you in the first place when you were clearly never going to live up to the expectations that I had for you. I now think you were making everything up as you went along just to keep me interested. You never really had any goals, nor had any ideas our relationship would lead us.

This last break up was the worst. I truly hated the way we finished. I thought we were heading in the same direction, but then you revealed a piece of your past to me that was going to affect our future and I didn’t like it. I didn’t like it one bit. But as ever, you presumed that I would just come running back. But a lot has changed since you’ve been gone my love. I have moved on. My Auntie, B.B.C, introduced me to somebody new, and her name was The Wire. I had heard a lot about her, and she seemed too good to be true. I mean, sure, I’d had a lot of quality partners in the past. The Sopranos were a tough bunch. At times things could get a little X-Rated and violent, but we always had a good time. It was my first relationship where I really felt like an adult. Then came 24, but she just ended up being a string of one-night stands. The intensity was too much too handle at times, but when we were together it was always fun. I’m not even sure what she is up to now anyway. I know she moved from L.A, to Washington. Last I heard she was in New York. Then there was Smallville who made me feel like a teenager again. But in the end, I found myself growing up and she wasn’t growing up with me so I had to leave. They were all great in their own special ways, so I didn’t see the point in emotionally investing myself in someone new so soon after my break up with you, Lost.

I spent a long time thinking about it, and eventually I decided to take Auntie’s advice to believe all the hype, bite the bullet and start another relationship. Even if it didn’t work out, I knew The Wire was only in England for an intensive short stay and would be leaving by the end of the autumn. When we went out on our first few dates I couldn’t stop thinking about you, Lost. Even though we were no longer together, I still felt like I was cheating on you. If the truth be told, I think I was only seeing The Wire to get over you. I didn’t want to get too involved so I was extremely cautious at the start, wary not to be taken for a fool. But with The Wire, something felt different.

At first, I didn’t see what all the fuss was about. I felt like I had made a mistake and wasted my time getting involved with someone else so soon. Sure, she was intelligent, witty, funny and the like. But it just felt like something was missing. However, as the seasons passed something began to change. The Wire was intelligent and started treating me like an adult. The Wire didn’t keep repeating itself in an effort to keep my attention. There were no flashy gimmicks, no tricks. Nothing was drawn out. Everything felt fresh and vibrant. The Wire would just be herself and if I liked it, great. If not, tough. We would see each other three or four times a week but The Wire really took it’s time with me. It really got to know me and I know her. No longer was I being brought to the brink on every date, only to be teased into an anti climax and told to wait until the next date. She wouldn’t leave me hanging over the proverbial cliff. She respected me as a person, and respected my intelligence and this made me want to see her even more. The Wire was incredibly complex and complicated, and once I had figured her out, it was the best thing that had ever happened to me. We would have some real in depth conversations and I really had to pay attention to her. There was no filler on our dates. Everything she said was for a reason. So we took things slowly at first and gradually we picked up the pace until we really got in our groove and eventually we reached a wholly satisfying, full on climax. Was the hype justified? You bet it was. I had never been with anyone like The Wire before. And just like that, after 5 months, The Wire was gone. It cut like a knife, but she was out of my life. However, I had the time of my life, and I owed it all to The Wire. Lost, you were the last thing on my mind. I felt free. Grown up. Mature. I could finally think about making a new start.

But now you’re back from outer space. I just walked in to find you here with that sad look upon your face. I should have changed that stupid lock! I should have made you leave your key if I had known for just one second you would be back to bother me. I’ve decided that I’m not going to get involved with you anymore. I’ve grown up and don’t need a tease like you in my life. Go on. GO! Get out of here!

Ok, Wait. Wait, wait, wait. Don’t go! Don’t walk out that door. I know I’m crazy for thinking this, but maybe, just maybe this time will be different. Maybe you were just making it seem like you were B.S’ing your way through our relationship. Maybe you do really have an answer for all those little mysteries you introduced me too. Maybe this time you will quit playing games with my heart. Maybe it was my fault for reading into things you said a little too much. Maybe, just when I thought our chance had past you’d gone and save the best for last. Yes, that’s it! Let’s let nature decide and try for one more season. Come on Baby, one more time! Maybe then you will give me all the answers I need to fully understand you and it will be true love after all.

How about we meet up on Tuesday? Say 9pm? Or if you’d prefer, we could do England? Next Sunday at the same time? Yes? Great! Oh, Lost. How I’ve missed you so. You’re just too good to be true. I can’t take my eyes off of you. Oh, I’m just so excited and I just can’t hide it. I know this may sound like a bit of a cliché, but I really have been lost without you.

Let’s get it on…

2010-02-15T01:47:00.000-08:00

For those of you who loved Avatar….BEWARE!

I only heard about this story today and was amazed by it. Thought it was strange enough to share.

(taken from CNN.com)

CNN) — James Cameron’s completely immersive spectacle “Avatar” may have been a little too real for some fans who say they have experienced depression and suicidal thoughts after seeing the film because they long to enjoy the beauty of the alien world Pandora.

On the fan forum site “Avatar Forums,” a topic thread entitled “Ways to cope with the depression of the dream of Pandora being intangible,” has received more than 1,000 posts from people experiencing depression and fans trying to help them cope. The topic became so popular last month that forum administrator Philippe Baghdassarian had to create a second thread so people could continue to post their confused feelings about the movie.

“I wasn’t depressed myself. In fact the movie made me happy ,” Baghdassarian said. “But I can understand why it made people depressed. The movie was so beautiful and it showed something we don’t have here on Earth. I think people saw we could be living in a completely different world and that caused them to be depressed.”

A post by a user called Elequin expresses an almost obsessive relationship with the film.

“That’s all I have been doing as of late, searching the Internet for more info about ‘Avatar.’ I guess that helps. It’s so hard I can’t force myself to think that it’s just a movie, and to get over it, that living like the Na’vi will never happen. I think I need a rebound movie,” Elequin posted.

A user named Mike wrote on the fan Web site “Naviblue” that he contemplated suicide after seeing the movie.

“Ever since I went to see ‘Avatar’ I have been depressed. Watching the wonderful world of Pandora and all the Na’vi made me want to be one of them. I can’t stop thinking about all the things that happened in the film and all of the tears and shivers I got from it,” Mike posted. “I even contemplate suicide thinking that if I do it I will be rebirthed in a world similar to Pandora and the everything is the same as in ‘Avatar.’ “

Other fans have expressed feelings of disgust with the human race and disengagement with reality.

Cameron’s movie, which has pulled in more than $1.4 billion in worldwide box office sales and could be on track to be the highest grossing film of all time, is set in the future when the Earth’s resources have been pillaged by the human race. A greedy corporation is trying to mine the rare mineral unobtainium from the planet Pandora, which is inhabited by a peace-loving race of 10-foot tall, blue-skinned natives called the Na’vi.

In their race to mine for Pandora’s resources, the humans clash with the Na’vi, leading to casualties on both sides. The world of Pandora is reminiscent of a prehistoric fantasyland, filled with dinosaur-like creatures mixed with the kinds of fauna you may find in the deep reaches of the ocean. Compared with life on Earth, Pandora is a beautiful, glowing utopia.

Ivar Hill posts to the “Avatar” forum page under the name Eltu. He wrote about his post-“Avatar” depression after he first saw the film earlier this month.

“When I woke up this morning after watching Avatar for the first time yesterday, the world seemed … gray. It was like my whole life, everything I’ve done and worked for, lost its meaning,” Hill wrote on the forum. “It just seems so … meaningless. I still don’t really see any reason to keep … doing things at all. I live in a dying world.”

Reached via e-mail in Sweden where he is studying game design, Hill, 17, explained that his feelings of despair made him desperately want to escape reality.

“One can say my depression was twofold: I was depressed because I really wanted to live in Pandora, which seemed like such a perfect place, but I was also depressed and disgusted with the sight of our world, what we have done to Earth. I so much wanted to escape reality,” Hill said.

Cameron’s special effects masterpiece is very lifelike, and the 3-D performance capture and CGI effects essentially allow the viewer to enter the alien world of Pandora for the movie’s 2½-hour running time, which only lends to the separation anxiety some individuals experience when they depart the movie theater.

“Virtual life is not real life and it never will be, but this is the pinnacle of what we can build in a virtual presentation so far,” said Dr. Stephan Quentzel, psychiatrist and Medical Director for the Louis Armstrong Center for Music and Medicine at Beth Israel Medical Center in New York. “It has taken the best of our technology to create this virtual world and real life will never be as utopian as it seems onscreen. It makes real life seem more imperfect.”

Fans of the movie may find actor Stephen Lang, who plays the villainous Col. Miles Quaritch in the film, an enemy of the Na’vi people and their sacred ground, an unlikely sympathizer. But Lang says he can understand the connection people are feeling with the movie.

“Pandora is a pristine world and there is the synergy between all of the creatures of the planet and I think that strikes a deep chord within people that has a wishfulness and a wistfulness to it,” Lang said. “James Cameron had the technical resources to go along with this incredibly fertile imagination of his and his dream is built out of the same things that other peoples’ dreams are made of.”

The bright side is that for Hill and others like him — who became dissatisfied with their own lives and with our imperfect world after enjoying the fictional creation of James Cameron — becoming a part of a community of like-minded people on an online forum has helped them emerge from the darkness.

“After discussing on the forums for a while now, my depression is beginning to fade away. Having taken a part in many discussions concerning all this has really, really helped me,” Hill said. “Before, I had lost the reason to keep on living — but now it feels like these feelings are gradually being replaced with others.”

Quentzel said creating relationships with others is one of the keys to human happiness, and that even if those connections are occurring online they are better than nothing.

“Obviously there is community building in these forums,” Quentzel said. “It may be technologically different from other community building, but it serves the same purpose.”

Within the fan community, suggestions for battling feelings of depression after seeing the movie include things like playing “Avatar” video games or downloading the movie soundtrack, in addition to encouraging members to relate to other people outside the virtual realm and to seek out positive and constructive activities.”

It’s pretty messed up if you ask me. The fact that some people are contemplating suicide in the belief that they might be reborn seems absurd to me. But then i do remember people watching horror films and blaming them for their actions. These films were subsequently BANNED! Can’t see that happening with the mega money juggernaut that is Avatar.

There seems to be something fishy going on with Avatar and i wouldn’t be surprised if there were some sort of subliminal messaging going on between those 3D lines. I mean, sure, Avatar looked great, but it’s not THAT good. I certainly can’t believe that it is now the highest grossing film of all time in such a short space of time.

Any thoughts? Post a comment…

2010-02-15T01:46:00.000-08:00

Movie Review – “The Book of Eli”

by Dean Crawford

The fourth collaborative outing from Albert and Allan “Menace to Society” Hughes, is “The Book of Eli” starring Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman. It promised to be an exciting affair for several reasons. One, the film appeared to deal with many themes including the role of religion in the future. Perhaps this would encourage some serious debate, as the presence of religion in society is a topic on most people’s minds right now. It also appeared to have some exciting action sequences and I found the idea of Denzel Washington as a sword wielding religious bad-ass to be quite appealing. It was also the newest in a line of post-apocalyptic movies to be released here in the UK, and it came only a week after “The Road”, which is superb. Now, for me to make comparisons between “The Road” and “The Book of Eli” would be unfair, as they are two totally different films with very different directors. Well, sometimes life just isn’t fair so I’m going to anyway! First, the outline of the film.

“The Book of Eli” centres around Denzel Washington’s character, Eli, who has been charged with the heavy duty of carrying the last remaining Bible on Earth. Eli is our main protagonist and our hero. He has been walking for over 30 years and all he knows is that his job is to carry the bible West to put it into the hands of people who will know what to do with it. This task is not as easy as it seems as the roads are filled with gangs that are willing to do anything to find scraps and leftovers.

This world is lawless. People rape, people kill, people eat each other. Sound familiar? After using his holy sword of justice to destroy a group of mercenaries, their boss Carnegie, played by Gary Oldman, tries to persuade Eli to join his gang. It just so happens that Carnegie is on his own holy pursuit to find the book but for totally different reasons. He intends to use the bible to corrupt. He sees the book as a weapon. So it’s lucky for Carnegie that Eli spends a night in his “hotel” and subsequently realizes that Eli is carrying his much sought after item. What ensues is an all too predictable game of cat and mouse in which Eli and his female companion try to stay one step ahead of Carnegie. They encounter strange people on the way. They almost get caught. Eli kicks arse. They run away. They almost get caught again. They blow sh!t up. They run away again. You think they are giving away the book. They are not. You think they aren’t going to make it out West. They do. There is one genuine twist in the film which I won’t give away, but it doesn’t affect the outcome of the film in the slightest.

At times, “The Book of Eli” is visually stunning. It has a stylish sepia, almost as if the contrast has been turned up so high as if to make you feel like the characters in the film, who are constantly under the threat of being blinded by the sun. It is not 100% confirmed what caused the world in which they live to become the way it has, but we do know that it was a war that started it. Because of the bright, stylized nature of the film, possibly a nuclear as the toned up bright lights reminds me of The Matrix or Highlander Part 2 where wars or science burned holes in the sky to which people must now protect themselves from. The action sequences at times are equally impressive. Denzel does a good job with the fights, though sometimes they feel quite laborious and his movements lackadaisical and highly staged. Obviously they are choreographed fight sequences, but you don’t want to realise this during the film ruining the illusion. He is also helped by the way the directors choose to stage the action. Whether is be filming them in shadow, or making numerous cuts so as to not linger on Denzel too much. One action sequence in particular is quite breathtaking. Eli and his companion are inside a house and Carnegie is outside, and all hell breaks loose. Guns blaze, rockets fire and things get blown up. The camera goes in the house, outside the house. Through the letter box. Through bullet holes. Think one particular shoot out in “Bad Boys 2”, only more impressive. And what makes this scene so impressive is that it appears to happen in one take. Gary Oldman is his usual brilliant self, seamlessly mixing smooth criminal and manic psycho in one fell swoop. The rest of the film, however, is less impressive.

In my recent review of the Road, I mentioned how impressed I was with the look of the characters. In that world, the remaining people who survived have nothing and it really showed. The people looked dirty. I mean, really dirty. However, in “The Book of Eli”, despite living in a post-apocalyptic world where water, let alone soap is like gold dust, many individuals still manage to have a certain sex appeal. Some of the woman’s clothes are horrifically dirty, yet are luckily ripped just in the right ways as to show a nice amount of cleavage or lie tantilisingly high above the knee. Even some of the men manage to get matching outfits and look like trendy cyber punks. In “The Road”, people wear a mish mash of garments and simply make do. “The Road” has a magical way of reminding us to not take things for granted by the intense pleasure they take in the small things, such as a cigarette or a can of peaches. It is subtly done. In Eli, we have Denzel Washington spell out to his audience what went wrong in the past.

“In the world before, people had more than they needed and had no idea what was precious. We threw away things that people kill each other for now” – Eli.

I know this is nitpicking and like I mentioned earlier, it is totally unfair for me to compare the two films as they are unique and each director had their own individual visions on how best to portray their worlds, but I believe it’s the little touches like this that make the difference between average filmmaking and great filmmaking.

Another fault I found in the film was the crass way in which it tries to make a statement. On the one hand, we have Eli who is walking across the country on blind faith alone. A voice inside told him where to find the book and what to do with it, and he is protecting it with his life. He lives his life by the words inside and in this brave new world, this appears to make him one of the last few decent people in America. We could deduce it is his faith that allows him to act this way. So, are the filmmakers trying to say “look what happens in a world without religion? People loot, people kill, people pillage, people eat other.” If so, then we should bring religion back right? Well, contrary to this opinion, Eli suggests that religion might have well been the cause of the war. And take Gary Oldman’s character Carnegie for example.

“It’s not a book, it’s a weapon! A weapon aimed at the hearts and minds of the weak and desperate. They’ll come from all over to hear it’s words and they’ll do whatever I tell them…it’s happened before.” – Carnegie.

He is quite clearly the representation of the darker side and religion and how some new radicals can take the words of religious texts, whether it be the bible, the Koran, the Tora, and use it’s message for destruction and self gain rather than peace. He is the total antithesis to Eli. Both points of view are put through to the audience so it is hard to know what side of the fence it sits on. If, like Eli suggested some people believed, the bible was the cause of this apocalyptic event, why not simply leave it be? Wouldn’t the war he described simply happen again? If there are people out there who are willing to rape, kill and pillage to get their hands on it to spread it’s message for that of selfishness and their own interests, why not just destroy it too, or bury it so no one will be able to manipulate it’s message ever again. The answer is obvious, of course. And I am sure that by presenting such strong cases for each case, the directors want the audience to make up their own minds, but I just see it as a way of dumbing down an audience so you don’t necessarily have to think about it too much and just focus on the ass-kicking.

Ultimately, what could have been a well thought out movie that infers the role of religion in the future and what role that can play on our lives, ends up in a none-too-original popcorn action flick. Instead of subtly trying to engage in debates and let us try and make weigh up the pro’s and con’s of each character by their actions alone, we are bashed about the head with a shovel full of contrasting opinions. “RELIGION IS GOOD!” “NO, RELIGION IS BAD AND CAN CORRUPT!” RARRRRRR!! And what also could have been a slick action movie with great pacing, merely dragged along from one formulaic narrative point to the next. I wouldn’t say that “The Book of Eli” is that bad, it just isn’t that great either. I would say that the directors missed a great opportunity. They would probably say they just wanted to see Denzel Washington as a sword-wielding religious bad-ass. In that respect, they reached their holy grail. Amen.

Trailers that were shown before the movie:

“Ninja assassin” - Looks lame, but the fights look great.

“The crazies” – Zombies? Air born viruses? Whatever, looks creepy.

“Shutter Island” - The trailer could have consisted of Leonardo Di Caprio reading the Great Gatsby for two hours and I would still be excited for this.

“Edge of darkness” – Mel Gibson goes crazy and beats up people…again. Directed by Martin Campbell who did Casino Royale so I’m in.

“Green Zone” - Could be interesting, but it just looks like The Bourne Identity Part 4 – Bourne Got His Memory Back.

Movie Review - Up In The Air

2010-02-15T01:41:00.000-08:00

Movie Review – Up in the Air

by Dean Crawford

‘Up in the Air’ was a film that interested me for several reasons. All the ingredients appeared to be present to make this film a critical and commercial success. Though if the truth be told, it did seem more like a film that you probably should see rather than one you would want to see. For the film snob, ‘Up in the Air’ was adapted from the 2001 novel of the same name written by Walter Kirn. You have Jason Reitman at the helm who is the Oscar nominated director of the 2007 surprise hit ‘Juno’. And on Sunday, the film won the Golden Globe for Best Screenplay which is a good indicator that it will be in the running for the same award at the Oscars. For everyone else, you get to, as my girlfriend so subtly put it, “swoon over the Cloon”. The advertising campaign has been suggesting that this is a quirky, yet quite serious film. And with it being released at this particular time of year it is clearly being geared up for the Oscars. But is it any good?

In short, yes. It came as a surprise to me, but I really enjoyed it. It was one of those moments where the stars and planets align and a perfect mood is created for you to enjoy a film that you otherwise thought you wouldn’t. I was pretty tired and wasn’t particularly interested in anything fast paced and action driven, so ‘Up in the Air’ was a perfect choice. The films premise is simple. George Clooney plays Ryan Shawcross. He works for a company whose sole purpose is to outsource its consultants to fire other companies’ staff. So cue sequences of people’s reactions to getting fired. We have the “f@ck you!” reaction. We have the “but what am I to do?” reaction. We have the “what do I tell my kids?” reaction. And of course, we have the “uncontrollable crying” reaction. Ryan spends 80 percent of his life either on the road or flying in the air. This is where he is happiest and hates spending the rest of his time in his bare apartment in Omaha. He doesn’t need anyone or anything to complete his life except for his vast collection of loyalty cards and his quest to reach 10,000,000 air miles. However, his idyllic world is threatened to be cut short as technology and rising fuel costs seek to make him obsolete. In a bid to keep his lifestyle, he is told to take “the new girl” whose new ideas are revolutionizing his industry, on the road to show her the ropes. Ahh, how films love the ropes! Of course, the two are polar opposites. Clooney doesn’t ever want to get married, have kids or settle down as ultimately, we all die alone. Natalie Keener, played by Twilight’s Natalie Kendrick, has had her life planned out for years and believes in true love and happiness and being with somebody forever. As they travel together and Clooney shows her those ropes, they gradually begin to wear each other down and see the value in each other’s opinions. As you would expect, Clooney starts to soften up and realise that maybe he doesn’t want to be alone after all after spending time with the likeminded Alex Goran. Cue a whirlwind finale where each person goes through a moment of self reflection and ultimately decides how they want to live their life, and thankfully there is not a typical Hollywood ending in sight.

As you might have expected by it’s Golden Globe victory, the script is very, very good. Not a great deal actually happens in the film but you are more than happy to watch the characters go about their ways discussing life, love and the current financial climate as the fundemental issues raised by the film are prevalent in todays society more than ever. But be warned, there is a lot of dialogue in this movie. If you want to see an action driven film, this isn’t the one for you. George Clooney talks and George Clooney listens. This is how the film works. And it would never have worked without solid performances from the actors. The casting of Clooney is an inspired choice as, like his character, he symbolizes the older gentleman who loves his life and is still yet to settle down. The biggest compliment I can pay him, is that during periods of the film you forget you are watching George Clooney and he simply is Ryan Shawcross. He is still his usual suave self and for all the bravado and self-assurance he gives his character, you also sense of an underlying sadness and unease in his performance. Kendrick is also very good as the uptight, motivated new girl. She is fully believable as the driven, yet somehow uncomfortable idealist who knows what she wants and is going to get it. When she eventually cracks and breaks down in tears, it’s not as if it is a complete transformation as she has laid the pre-cursors and given clues to the frailties inside her. Her transformation is all too real. Vera Farmiga excels as Clooney’s love interest. Her character Alex Goran is a person that you sometimes wish you could be. Confident, sexy, fearless, and when you think you know her you find out you really know nothing about her at all. The actors immerse themselves in the script brilliantly and create characters that you want to follow around and get to know better. Like Clooney, you don’t want the plane journeys to end.

As for the directing, there is nothing flashy, nothing too outlandish as it wouldn’t have fit the story. Instead, Jason Reitman lets the story tell itself and it works incredibly well. He definitely makes air travel and certain lifestyles seem sexy. After leaving the theatre all I wanted to do was jump on an American Airlines jet and travel first class to anywhere! But then the reality set in that on all of my long haul flights, not once have I ever turned left after boarding. The closest I have ever come to a first class experience on a plane, was asking for a second dinner on a flight to Korea!

Whilst I was watching the film I couldn’t find anything to fault. But once again, if I had to find a fault it would be this – Why can’t the people around him just let him be? Apart from his long distance booty call, all of the people that are closest to Shawcross are trying to pick apart his life and tell him how he should be living his life and constantly tell him what will make him happy. Who are they to know what will make him happy or not? It’s nice for him that he has such caring friend(s) and family but if he has achieved his pursuit of happiness and found something that makes him truly happy in an unconventional way, shouldn’t we be pleased for him? Just because he doesn’t subscribe to the same notions of happiness that most people do, does it really give us the right to bully him into changing. Eventually he decides to take the plunge and give the “normal life” a shot. Does this make him happier? Does he decide to abandon his old life and settle down? Well, that wouldn’t be fair of me to spoil the ending but i can assure you it’s wholly satifying yet poses several questions.

Up in the Air might not be an Avatar with all it’s glitzy 3D special effects, or a cool ensemble such as Inglorious Basterds. But what it does provide its audience with is a picture of modern recession-era America (or the world for that matter), and a study of what is important in our own day-to-day lives. It is a wake up call to show how our dreams and aspirations can get lost without us even realising. ‘Up in the Air’ has moments of humour, wit and for some viewers, moments of self-reflection. Ultimately, it’s how we deal with these situations and if we have the ability to bounce back from them using change as a positive influence in our lives. It encourages us not take anything for granted. I for one will be taking these points on board and will no longer be afraid to live life to the full or chase my dreams. I can assure that the next time I fly long haul to Korea, I will definitely be getting that second dinner.

Movie Review (My first one so apologies if a little nonsensical and incoherent...) - The Road

2010-01-17T04:03:00.000-08:00

Before I write this review there is something that i have to admit. I had absolutely no intention of seeing this film. I thought the trailer looked quite lame and sappy and not as gritty and depressing as I'd heard the book was supposed to be. I'd also heard other rumblings with regards to deviations from the book to make it more appealing to a different demographic, ie. all the ladies. So due to the apparent 'hollywoodisation' of the film, and what clearly looked to be a happy ending from the trailer, my principles and loving everything about film told me to give it a miss and go and see "Alvin and the Chipmunks" part 2 instead.

However, I just missed the squeakual so 'The Road' it was. Now if you are unfamiliar with the premise of The Road, here's a brief outline. In what could very well be the not too distant past, present or future, some undescribed apocalyptic event has taken place and now fires rage, the sun is blocked and no life or crops can grow. Trees fall and food is scarce. We follow Viggo Mortensen's character, who is simply known in the credits as 'Man', and his young son, 'Kid', on their journey on the desolate roads as they attempt to head south to the sea and a warmer climate in the hope for survival in this harsh new world. This is no easy feat of course. The Roads are a dangerous place filled with gangs and outlaws who only think of survival and food...human or otherwise! But to say this is simply a "road" movie (sorry) is not doing it any justice at all. It is so much more than that. But first things first…

I thought the road was brilliant. It was just so bloody dark. I wish I had read the book to see if it was similar in tone, but the darkness just never let up. Apart from the flashbacks, every scene is grey. The people are dirty and nothing is clean. The only time we see a natural bright light, is when things are burning down. So how ironic it is that our main characters look at this sight with wonder and awe in memory of times past such as when the sun came up, but at the same time they are watching the slow destruction of mankind.

Secondly, Viggo Mortensen is fantastic. Again, I would like to read the book (or have someone tell me through the interweb...) to see how faithful his portrayal is, but I thought his effort as "The Man" was excellent. His determination, motivation and exasperation ooze through the screen as we watch The Man deteriorate through every scene. He knows that he will not be around forever, and his sole purpose is to prepare his son for his absence. It could have been so easy to portray The Man as a strong, fearless character who will stop at nothing to get to where he wants. I mean, he is, but Mortensen has a real fragility about him. You can tell that he is just as scared in this new world and everything in it, just as much as his son is. There are some real touching moments between Mortensen and the boy. Little actions such as kissing his son's forehead or washing his hair say so much about their relationship in a way that words could not.

And thirdly, the score. I usually stay to watch the credits in most films, but on this occasion I had more of a reason to as to find out who composed it, as it was startlingly eerie and extremely poignant. The original music was written by Nick Cave (of the bad seeds) and Warren Ellis. If you ever want to hear a score that makes mixes hauntingly beautiful sounds with depressive undertones at the same time, here it is. John Hillcoats direction and the score work in tandem perfectly.

If I had to nitpick about anything in the film, it would have to be the supporting cast. I thought the Kodi-Smit McPhee (I wished his parents named me!) was solid enough as the kid, but at times I found him a little too whiny. Annoyingly so at times, as he tried to be the voice of reason in most situations. Whereas Man would be tough and show no mercy to anyone, whether it be an old blind man or a traveler who only ten minutes earlier had robbed them, Kid would always insist his father show leniency and continue to be one of "the good guys". It is beyond me how after everything the kid would have seen in his short years, that he would be so...well, so nice. I was dubious enough of everyone walking down the ko san road in Bangkok, let alone to people in a post apocalyptic world where you could potentially be the main course. I also had a problem with the wife and mother, played by Charlize Theron. Whereas Man thinks of nothing but his son, Woman seems to be suffering from some kind of exaggerated mutant version of post natal depression. Some might say she is the realist in the story, but I would just say she was a real downer. She is constantly moaning about how they have no chance of surviving another winter, or how they shouldn't have even had him. I can only think she is like this to accentuate Man's good qualities and to highlight his commitment to his son even more.

I also had a problem with one of the cameos. Don't be fooled by Guy Pearce's name on the poster. In a roundabout way, his character does have a fairly significant role to play in protecting the future of mankind, but he is barely in the film five minutes! So rather than taking in the last five to ten minutes of the film and digesting what I had seen whilst watching the climax, I found myself thinking "Oh that's Guy Pearce! I forgot he was supposed to be in this movie. Hang on, where the f@ck has he been for the last hour and forty minutes, wasn't he in the trailer? Why have they given him dodgy teeth?" However, like I said, this is all just nitpicking as the pro's of this film FAR outweigh any minor points that might have slightly bugged me.

At its core, ‘The Road’ is a film about the relationship between a father and son. But I think it also presents us with a chance to reflect on our own lives and think about the relationships that are important to us and what we would do to protect the ones we love. It's also about the appreciation of what we have. Things such as a pair of shoes or a can of coke might seem like trivialities to us now, but if we continue the way we are now, they might be like gold dust in the future. So, from this day on I will treat every day like it is my last. I will enjoy every meal or can of soda like it is the best meal I’ve had or it’s the amber nectar itself. And I will appreciate every movie I see. I will savour every image and try to analyse every film like it is Citizen Kane or Pulp Fiction itself. Well, that is unless I do finally get around to seeing Alvin and the Chipmunks 2.

Hello, and welcome...

2010-01-16T13:43:00.000-08:00

...to my blog. If i'm honest, I don't really think anyone will anyone will read this but it's something i just wanted to do for myself. I hope to mainly post thoughts on films i see. I see a lot of films. Hopefully now all that money will be put to good use. Excuse me now whilst i go and tell my mothers dogs to shut up!

:: The Kinky Afro ::

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol - (AKA, i heart Tom Cruise...)

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn....give me strength...

Transformers: Dark SIDE of the Moon

February's film viewing....

Movie Review - Paul

Movie Review - Black Swan

Interview with Tyler Crawford - Aged 10 - after watching Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part I

Movie Review - Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I

Movie Review - Predators

Movie Review - StreetDance

Get LOST - The finale pre and post viewing event

Movie Review - Kick-Ass

Movie Review - Crazy Heart

Movie Review - The Crazies

Movie Review - Alice In Wonderland

Movie Review - Micmacs

More posters and a trailer for the Nightmare on Elm Street remake

Movie Review - The Wolfman

Martin Scorsese and Robert De Niro to reunite?

Movie Review - A Serious Man

Lost Recap – Season 6 Episode 2: What Kate Does

Lost Recap and Analysis – LAX parts 1 and 2

Lost Recap and Analysis – LAX parts 1 and 2

Movie Review - Precious

Trailer - Four Lions

Trailer - Cemetary Junction

Trailer - Cemetary Junction

Have I been Lost without Lost

Movie Review - Up In The Air

Movie Review (My first one so apologies if a little nonsensical and incoherent...) - The Road

Hello, and welcome...