“Less of a random killing machine, more of a personal statement”

Hello Everyone :-)

So where do you stand on James Bond? This MI6 shaped pillar of British cinema has divided audiences for many a year.
Me? I’m a fan. Admittedly some are better than others but I can’t help but like them. After the success re-boot of the franchise in 2006 with the fantastic ‘Casino Royale’ the saga floundered with 2008’s ‘Quantum of Solace’ that has flashes of brilliance but gets wrapped up in its own plot and is an unfortunate product of the Writers Guild of America strike. So, four years later it’s the 50^th Anniversary year of the James Bond series, Sam Mendes is at the helm and Daniel Craig is, once again, donning the tux of our favourite secret agent.

‘Skyfall’ follows Bond (Daniel Craig) in the wake of a mission where he is injured, presumed dead. Bond treats this near-miss as an opportunity to retire from duty until an explosion at MI6 headquarters pulls him back to MI6. The attack is thought to be a message for M (Judy Dench) from the enigmatic and dangerous Raoul Silva (Javier Bardem) who is hell bent on revenge.

I listened to the always entertaining ‘Kermode and Mayo Podcast’ the other day. Al Murray and the ‘Oyds (Boyd Hilton and Nigel Floyd) were filling in for the Good Doctor and Mr Mayo the week after ‘Skyfall’ opened and Al Murray said (I’m paraphrasing) “If ‘Casino Royale’ and ‘Quantum of Solace’ are post-Bourne Bond films, then ‘Skyfall’ is a post-Nolan Bond film”. In fact, some people have actually complained that ‘Skyfall’ has borrowed themes from ‘Dark Knight Rises’. IN WHAT WORLD IS THAT A BAD THING?!?!?! Whether or not ‘Skyfall’ was influenced by Nolan’s Batman Trilogy is irrelevant. Personally I think if we get two films of the same quality as DKR and ‘Skyfall’ every year I’ll be a happy girl.

The opening scene of ‘Skyfall’ is absolutely wonderful and shows films like ‘Taken 2’ exactly how to do a chase across the roofs of Istanbul. There is a moment in this first sequence that is included in the film’s trailer where Bond leaps onto the back of a train carriage as it is ripped open by a digger. He jumps, lands amidst the chaos and calmly adjusts the cuff of his shirt. It is a wonderful moment of pure cinema that signals a return to some of the more fantastical elements that have traditionally been present in Bond’s action scenes of old. I like that the film makers have catered for the section of the audience that feels that there should be a certain suspension of disbelief where Bond is concerned. This doesn’t just apply to action scenes either; the film makers have hit the perfect line between the recent gritty take on Bond and nostalgia for previous instalments of the series.

It isn’t just the action that is on point, the acting is too. ‘Skyfall’ continues Craig’s impressive run as Bond. I love his dark and brooding take on the character. He’s charismatic without being too comic, he’s serious without being too severe and he plays perfectly against the other performers.
There is a distinct lack of a traditional ‘Bond-Girl’ in ‘Skyfall’. Naomi Harris’s Eve is an interesting character whose identity is the worst kept secret ever, nevertheless I won’t drop any spoilers here. Bérénice Marlohe is a beautiful, if ultimately pointless, shot of oestrogen in the film but ultimately it falls to Judi Dench’s M to represent those of us lacking a Y chromosome.
It’s accepted that Dench is a massive spanner in the continuity of the Bond universe but that doesn’t stop her giving the performance of her Bond tenure in 'Skyfall'. When M quotes the poem ‘Ulysses’ during a parliamentary hearing I swear my Goosebumps had Goosebumps. She’s fantastic.
A little mention to NerdyRachelMay favourite Ben Whishaw, star of ‘The Hour’ and ‘The Hollow Crown’. If I didn’t have a crush on him before I definitely do now thanks to ‘Skyfall’. Whishaw is the physical embodiment of the franchise’s move forward into more modern, relevant movie making. He is young, clever, pithy, has a playful on-screen chemistry with Craig and a face that makes me melt… but enough of my ridiculous crushes.
Question: Can you remember the names of the villains in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace? I know I can’t, not without consulting Professor Wikipedia. Aside from the fact that he has already played one of the most terrifying on-screen antagonists I have ever seen, casting Javier Bardem as Silva was a stroke of genius. Bardem plays ‘Skyfall’s big, bad, cyber-terrorist as camp riddle wrapped in an intimidating enigma. He is threatening in every way; physically, psychologically even sexually. The first scene in which he appears is a hypnotic monologue delivered as he slowly walks towards Bond and the audience; I was utterly transfixed. To my mind he’s the best Bond villain to date.

The film is great on a narrative level but also on a technical level it far surpasses, not only its immediate predecessor but most of the previous Bond outings. Sam Mendes initially seemed like a strange choice to direct the latest film in the series but he pushes the story forward at a rate of knots and thoroughly earns his keep. I like his vision for the character and I would love it if he stayed for a second film.
The effects are fantastic, both CGI and in camera. The unsung hero of the piece is cinematographer Roger Deakins. ‘Skyfall’ is utterly beautiful; to the point where some of the shots made me well up with just how gorgeous they are (I am very aware of how ridiculous that makes me sound but it’s true). I haven’t seen a more handsome film this year and doubt anything will touch it between now and the end of December.

Some have said that the latter half of the film gives way to OTT displays of firepower and unbelievable plot contrivances. There is a certain level of truth in that accusation but in my opinion the first two acts delve into character and plot so much that I think it earns the right to let loose and go hell for leather in the final few scenes.
I have heard negative reviews of ‘Skyfall’ that decry it to be “boring”, but that baffles me. Call it what you will but “boring”?!?!? REALLY?!?!?! I understand that other opinions are available, you may have liked the film or you may have hated it but I fail to see how you could find any of it boring.

I loved ‘Skyfall’. It has such a wonderful marriage of energy, performances and drop-dead gorgeous cinematography; I fail to see how you couldn’t get swept up in it. ‘Skyfall’ left me with no doubts; Bond is back and better than ever.

Let’s keep the merriment going with some…

Reasons to be cheerful :-)
1. The official synopsis for ‘Star Trek: IntoDarkness’ has been released! Unfortunately it doesn’t go a long way to answering the question we’re all asking: Who is Benedict Cumberbatch playing? Early reports said Khan (from ‘Wrath of…’ fame) and more recently Gary Mitchell has been suggested. Gary Mitchell was a Starfleet officer and friends with Captain Kirk until he has an unfortunate encounter with a galactic barrier and turns rogue. I think he would make the most interesting villain out of potential candidates but we won’t know who it is until we see the trailer… and even then there is no guarantee we’ll get a definitive answer!
The trailer is to be shown before screenings of ‘The Hobbit’ part 1 and no doubt nanoseconds later the Interweb will be aflutter with blogs and articles dissecting every last frame of it! Can’t wait :-)

2. The Sports Personality of the year shortlist has been released! I adore so many of the athletes on the shortlist so in a year where (due to the efforts of our sports-men and women) I have been constantly reminded of how truly grateful I am to have been born into such a brilliant country (I say that with complete sincerity) I have genuine sympathy for the people that have to choose a winner out of that shortlist. If it was up to me they’d all get an award!

3. The award for ‘The Thing That Made Me Laugh The Most Today’ goes to this guy :-)

That’s all I’ve got for you today!

Goodbye till next time :-)
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

“Listen to me carefully, Kim. Your mother and I are going to be taken."

Hello Everyone :-)

Question: When did Liam Neeson become such a badass? Answer: When ‘Taken’ happened. I think it’s safe to say that ‘Taken’ came as a bit of a surprise to everyone. It was a sleeper hit, spread mainly by word of mouth; a decent, gritty, exploitation B-movie that re-invented Neeson as an action star virtually overnight.
The trouble is that in today’s cinematic climate no one can leave anything as a successful one-off, everything has to have a sequel. Enter the hilariously named Olivier Megaton. Megaton is the Director of ‘Taken 2’ which I went to see a few weeks ago.

Now doing contract security work, Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) is learning to accept that his daughter Kim (Maggie Grace) is growing up and is going through all the things teenagers do like learning to drive and getting a Boyfriend. When picking Kim up for a driving lesson Bryan finds his ex-wife Lenore (Famke Janssen) has had an argument with her husband and as a way to cheer her and Kim up he invites them to meet him out in Turkey where he will be working the following week. The three meet up in Istanbul but it soon transpires that some men are plotting against Bryan and he and his family and may be in danger.

If it’s not been made clear over the course of this blog so far, let me declare it in the most unequivocal way possible; I love cinema.
I love watching trailers, I love deciding what films to see, I love buying my ticket, I love getting my Ben and Jerry’s (I always have 3 scoops of Cookie Dough Ice cream when I go to the pictures), nothing makes me happier. All this cinema related joy makes me an eternal optimist; I go into a film expecting the best. You can therefore imagine what a crushing disappointment it is to me when the film in question turns out to be as appallingly bad as ‘Taken 2’.

The plot is tracing-paper thin and totally devoid of excitement. The most galling thing is when it does have an interesting idea (which are few and VERY far between) it throws it away. Take, for instance, a scene where Bryan has been ‘taken’ (a word that is thrown around in this film far too liberally for my liking), he calls Kim and gives her some instructions so he can work out where he is being held captive. That is a really interesting idea; that Bryan has to instruct Kim in order for her to find and free him. They could have run with that idea and made Kim the gun-toting rescuer, flipping the Father/Daughter dynamic on its head but instead they cop out and do a piss poor chase around the roofs of Istanbul before Bryan comes and saves her. So unbelievably BORING! I have never fallen asleep the cinema but halfway into ‘Taken 2’ I was getting a wobbly head and had to be sharply elbowed by my friend to keep me awake.

I think the rating is part of the problem. One of the things that made ‘Taken’ so enjoyable was the mad violence that took the film up to its totally appropriate 15 rating. Blockbusters are so often filled with dull CGI action that when you get something like ‘Taken’ that has an insane amount of gritty, realistic brutality, it’s actually quite fun. ‘Taken 2’ has had all the violence toned down so it can achieve a 12A rating and in doing so has made the film completely beige. It’s been demonstrated that a 12A film can be brutal; ‘The Hunger Games’, for example, is a 12A with as much vicious-clout as a higher rated film. The difference between that and ‘Taken 2’ is that ‘The Hunger Games’ was well edited whereas this looks like an appalling hack-job.
Not just the violence itself but the feel of the fight scenes is disappointing; they’re dull. The final fight between Bryan and one of the Albanian cronies takes place in a Turkish bath house. What is supposed to come across as a tense, brutal showdown actually turns out to be a damp-squib of a fight between Neeson and a short, fat Albanian.

The cast try their best but they can’t lift this dull lump of a movie.
There’s quite a sweet story that starts to play out before anyone gets ‘taken’, where Kim is trying to get her Mum and Dad back together. In these scenes Janssen is quite good but that’s all the character development she’s afforded before someone puts a bag over her head and ties her to some metal piping for the remainder of the film.
Likewise Grace has the scene where she has to be Bryan’s eyes and ears and help him work out where he is in Istanbul when he gets kidnapped. After a paint-by-numbers car chase Kim is packed off to the American embassy not to be seen or heard from until the film’s conclusion.
Neeson makes a debonair killer and at 6”4 he is undeniably physically imposing but his talents aren’t pushed much further than demonstrating his ability to shoot a gun from the window of a moving car. He really convinced in ‘Taken’, it felt like he really was a Father on the edge. He never gets near that level of conviction in ‘Taken 2’ and has the look of a man who is only doing this for the paycheque.

Even if you don’t give a hoot about plot or narrative or things like that; even if all you want from a film is exciting action set pieces, trust me, you will come away from ‘Taken 2’disappointed. It smacks of a film made as a result of a financial spreadsheet and something with that kind of origin rarely turns out to be any good. If you liked ‘Taken’ and want to spend more time with those characters just buy it on DVD. Please don’t go and see this mind-numbingly dull film.

Well after that bitter taste of disappointment I desperately need some…

Reasons to be Cheerful :-)
1. OMG Les Misérables Official Trailer! My lovely Twitter-friend (Twiend?) Mike had the privilege of seeing this trailer when he went to see ‘Skyfall’ (my blog post about which is on the way) and I was super jealous because it wasn’t shown at my screening. Since then it’s been put up online and Mike was good enough to send me the link. It looks so good! I’m excited :-)

2. Any of you that see my Twitter feed will already know but last week I watched‘Game of Thrones’ series 1 for the first time.
The ‘Song of Ice and Fire’ books are fantastic; what Harry Potter was to me as a Teenager, these are to me as an adult. The TV adaptation is so wonderful I cannot begin to tell you, everything is how I imagined it, the opening titles are amazing, the music is fantastic; I just love it.
Anyway, I’m yet to see series 2 due to the fact I don’t have Sky but I have been looking at the new cast members for series 3! Paul Kaye as Thoros of Myr... INSPIRED!

That’s all I’ve got for you today!

Goodbye till next time :-)
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Rachel’s DVD Extras - “Most Engagements end up like ‘Saving Private Ryan’. Good Luck. God knows you’re going to need it”

Hello Everyone :-)

I realised something the other day; I’d forgot to write up some films. One was because I went to see it on my Birthday and I must have been distracted by the various celebrations that were happening at the time and it slipped my mind. So I’ve decided to write it up now as a 'DVD extra' because it was released last week on DVD and Blu-Ray. Let’s have a look at ‘The Five Year Engagement’.

Tom and Violet are a couple living in San Francisco that get engaged a year after they started dating. Tom is a sous chef at a successful restaurant and Violet is a psychology PhD graduate. The couple begin their engagement with the best of intentions but unfortunately life gets in the way of their planned nuptials.

I enjoyed ‘The Five Year Engagement’. It was advertised as “From the producer of Bridesmaids” but it’s not as broadly comic as that statement would suggest. It is funny but its humour comes mainly from its observations of life as an engaged couple that are fighting to keep it together.

I think this is quite nice spin on the modern Rom-Com. The characters are well written, believable and in a genre that is so often filled by adults that behave like they’re teenagers these are adults that (to a certain extent) act like they’re adults. The characters have jobs and families and worry about grown up things like money which gives the film a nice authenticity. The times the story strays into the realms of unbelievably is when it’s at its worst. One of the characters has a breakdown during part of the film that just seemed a little bit OTT and not in keeping with the rest of the film's realistic look at relationships.

The two leads are great and there are some nice supporting roles. Jason Segel as Tom is really very sweet and believable. He makes the phone call that we have all made to our ex where you try to be civil but then descend into name calling and blame pinning.

Emily Blunt is effortless and charming as ever. She is funny, sweet, clever, beautiful, all at the same time… some girls really do have all the luck!

I like the supporting performances from Alison Brie as Violet’s sister Suzie, Chris Pratt as Tom’s best friend Alex and Rhys Ifans at his slimy best as Winton, Violets lecherous Boss. That said the strength of the film is in the central pairing between Blunt and Segel. They’re adorable, the conversations they have are really realistic and above all else they make you root for them; you want it to work out between them.

The film’s humour is quite gentle save for a few broadly comic scenes. Tom’s relationship with Chris Parnell and Brian Posehn’s characters Bill and Tarquin lends itself to some brilliantly gawky moments but it’s the Elmo/Cookie Monster conversation between Violet and Suzie that had me in absolute stitches. Some of the attempts at comedy fell a little wide of the mark. The scenes with Violet’s colleagues Ming (Randall Park), Vaneetha (Mindy Kaling) and Doug (Kevin Hart) didn’t work for me. Also a scene with a breakfast conversation between Tom and his parents jarred. It didn’t make me laugh partly because it seemed to have been clumsily improvised and felt really awkward to watch.

Overall I liked ‘The Five Year Engagement’. It’s attempts at out and out comedy sometimes miss the target; it sags a little at the start of the third act and could have done with 15-20 minutes being cut from the run time but by and large I think it succeeds. It plays well with its intended audience (I went with 4 of my girlfriends and by the end of it we were ALL a little bit in love with Jason Segel) and it would take the stoniest of hearts not to warm to the central coupling of Violet and Tom. Highly recommended rom-com fluff :-)

Now it’s time for some…

Reasons to be Cheerful :-)

1. ‘The Hour’ is back! YAY! I recently saw the trailer again for the new series and immediately got on Amazon bought series 1 on DVD. I’ve been watching it again these past two days and I must say it’s so bloody good! There are some clips on the BBC website; a chat with the show's writer Abi Morgan and a clip from the first episode of the new series! Series 2 starts on Wednesday 14^th November at 9pm on BBC 2.

 2. New series of ‘Black Mirror’ has been confirmed! The always wonderful Charlie Brooker have been speaking about the new series and lots of lovely things besides :-)

That’s all I’ve got for you today!

Goodbye till next time :-)

x x x x x x x x x x x x x

"And in that moment, I swear we were infinite"

Hello Everyone :-)

I am a really big fan of Teen fiction. I know I’m 23 and should read grown-up things but I love The Hunger Games trilogy, John Green is one of my favourite writers and I’ll happily stand up and be counted as an adult that still reads books aimed at those a great deal younger than me. One very successful book in this genre is ‘The Perks of being a Wallflower’, I haven’t read it but I went to see the film adaptation a few days ago.

‘The Perks of being a Wallflower’ is the story of Charlie (Logan Lerman) who, at the start of the film, is beginning his first year in High School. Charlie is painfully shy but is gradually brought out of his shell when he makes friends with two senior students Patrick (Ezra Miller) and Sam (Emma Watson). They introduce him to a world of social outcasts, Rocky Horror and mixtapes that make him feel like he belongs but all the while he is being pulled back by the demons of his past.

‘The Perks of being a Wallflower’ is going to play quite well with its intended audience and I think that’s mainly down to its very talented, young cast. I have some problems with the film, but by and large I liked it.

The film takes place in the 1990's which I didn't realise at first. It took a good 20 minutes of people talking about cassette tapes and the characters not having mobile phones before I realised we were watching something set almost 20 years ago.

The script is fine. There are some stupid lines; for example, when Charlie is first accepted into Sam and Patrick’s friend circle Sam says to him “Welcome to the Island of Misfit Toys” which made me want to scream “NO-ONE TALKS LIKE THAT IN REAL LIFE!”. However, later on I thought about it and came to the conclusion that ‘Teenagers don’t talk like that, but they think like that’. Charlie is 14 years old in the film and Sam and Patrick are 17 and I know when I was that age I was a navel-gazing wannabe Emo/Indie Kid who amassed a number of affectations in order to impress people far cooler than me. With that in mind, I understand the use of that kind of scenester pontificating.

There’s a massive music related plot hole at the centre of this film that has really been bugging me. For all the talk in this film about ‘good music’ (a phrase, incidentally, I hate) one of the central conceits is that none of the characters know the song ‘Heroes’ by David Bowie. Now, a quick bit of research informs me that ‘Heroes’ was released in 1977, then a bit of maths tells me that even if this film was set in 1990 that song would be AT LEAST 13 years old and, considering these characters reference artists like New Order, Sonic Youth and Nick Drake, I find it hard to believe that they wouldn’t have a knowledge of David Bowie’s back-catalogue. I know it sound nit-picky but it drove me up the wall all the way home from the cinema.

In cinematic terms Emma Watson is perpetually stuck in the education system which, for the time being, is fine by me. In her biggest post-Potter role Watson does a sterling job of making a character I should have hated, really quite likable. People in films talking about how much they love The Smiths do my head in, so by all accounts I should have hated Sam. However she’s far more complex than your standard Manic Pixie Dream Girl and in my eyes that absolves her. Also she does a nicely convincing American accent :-)

Ezra Miller (last seen being equal parts amazing and fucking terrifying in ‘We Need to Talk about Kevin’) is sweet and likable as the openly gay Patrick. It’s really refreshing to see a teenaged, openly gay character on screen that isn’t wrestling with their sexuality. Patrick is fully aware of who he is and embraces that, his conflicts come from other peoples inability to do the same. Miller has a magnetic on-screen presence; there’s something about his face that draws me in. He’s massively talented and I suspect one to watch.

For me the surprise performance comes from Logan Lerman, he of ‘Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief’ and ‘The Three Musketeers’ fame. Lerman hasn’t particularly impressed in his previous roles but I thought he was brilliant in ‘The Perks of being a Wallflower’. In Lerman’s hands Charlie is a very shy, deeply insular individual and watching him open up over the course of this film is a lovely thing to see. Lerman pitches it just right, he’s not so isolated that he’s emotionally cut off but just enough that you want to given him a big hug and make him your new best friend.

There are some nice supporting roles for Mae Whitman and Paul Rudd but I maintain that the film works as well as it does because of those three central roles.

For me the faults lie in the source material. In my opinion there’s one ‘drama’ too many. There is no way your average teenager has this much turmoil in their lives. I accept that in films like this you’re going to get a lot of emotional conflict, however, in ‘The Perks of being a Wallflower’ there is loads; Domestic abuse, suicide, child abuse, homophobia, it gets pretty heavy. I think they could have ditched one of the storylines and the film wouldn’t have suffered. That said it’s extremely faithful (I’m reliably informed) to the source material. No doubt this is due to the fact that director and screenwriter Stephen Chbosky also wrote the novel on which the film is based.

Despite its faults I enjoyed ‘The Perks of being a Wallflower’. It really understands the Teenage condition; No one understands you, music and books seem like they reflect exactly what is going on in your life, you will shrivel and die unless you get a boyfriend/girlfriend and everything that happens to you is the most important thing in the universe. The three central performances are so likeable they anchor the film to the extent that, even if some things don’t make sense, you still enjoy watching it.

I’ve got a cold today (don’t worry, I’m reliably informed you can’t catch it via the internet…) so I definitely need some…

Reasons to be Cheerful :-)

1. 'Misfits' Season 4 starts on Sunday 28^th October! We have some new characters that look interesting, Seth will be becoming a full time cast member which I’m terribly excited about and it seems as though Rudy will be taking a leading role in our merry band of Community Paybackers :-) I’m excited!

2. I’ve been completely ignorant to ‘Django Unchained’. It’s a slavery revenge film, unsurprisingly in a similar vein to Inglorious Bastards because it’s directed by Quentin Tarantino. I saw the trailer the other day and it sparked my interest!

3. Superman has quit his day job to join the blogger-verse!!!

4. ALL THE STAR TREK CAPTAINS!

That’s everything for today!

Goodbye till next time :-)

x x x x x x x x x x x x x

"This time travel crap just fries your brain like an egg."

Hello Everyone :-)

I’ve very nearly finished writing up all the films I’ve seen in the past month! Today we’re having a look at ‘Looper’.

In 2044, the United States has suffered economic collapse, causing severe social decay and growth in organized crime. In 2074, time travel is invented, but is immediately outlawed. Tracking technology has rendered it virtually impossible to dispose of bodies secretly, so crime bosses use illegal time travel to send those they want killed back to 2044 where they are killed by the titular "Loopers": assassins paid with silver bars strapped to the victim. When crime bosses want to end a Looper's contract, they send his future self-back to be killed by his younger self, referred to as "closing the loop".

In 2044 Young Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) works as a Looper in Kansas. During a contract Young Joe finds himself face to face with his future self (Old Joe, Bruce Willis). Instead of killing him on sight he hesitates and Old Joe escapes. Old Joe is hell bent on saving his future but Young Joe wants to close his loop before his Boss closes it for him.

Science Fiction is probably my favourite genre, not just of films, but any story-telling medium. The wonderful thing about Sci-Fi is that it gives film makers the opportunity to comment on social issues and ideas in an exciting, inventive way. In the same manner that parents mix chopped up vegetables in with their children’s mashed-potato to fool them into eating them, the makers of ‘Looper’ stealthily hide more profound messages and ideas in something that is, on the surface, a futuristic action thriller.

The film is visually stylish but not clinical in the way that the recent ‘Total Recall’ remake was. Its sets and vistas have a very ‘lived-in’ feel to them which works perfectly with the idea that it is supposed to be a time of massive financial turmoil. It’s depiction of societal breakdown bought to mind ‘Children of Men’ and believe me I do NOT use that comparison lightly.

Bruce Willis has repented for his god-awful appearance in ‘The Expendables 2’ earlier this year by pulling this gem out of the bag. It’s a dark and surprisingly small role but Willis puts in a great performance.
Emily Blunt is brilliant as Sara, which is all I’m going to say about her. If you want to see the film and haven’t heard anything about her character, I implore you, please don’t! The less you know, the bigger the payoff.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt is having a pretty good year isn’t he??? Great turns in ‘50/50’, ‘Dark Knight Rises’ and now this. Prosthetic nose aside (it distressed me to look at it initially but I hardly noticed it by the end), Gordon-Levitt rises to the unenviable challenge of being Young Joe. He is an ostensibly hedonistic, unlikable character who is given a properly fleshed out story arc and believable motivations.

‘Looper’ doesn’t well on the physics of time travel and it’s the better for it. There are times where I revel in unraveling wibbly-wobbley timey-wimey plots (I had hours of fun with the recent River Song story arc on Doctor Who) but in ‘Looper’ it’s just not necessary. Initially I felt a bit daunted and though this was going to be another ‘Inception’ style head-scrambler but the audience is only really asked to understand the idea that the young Looper has to dispatch his older self.

The beating heart of ‘Looper’ lies in its emotional themes. It isn’t the first film to tackle the ideas it does but it’s certainly the boldest. There a certain elements of ‘Terminator’ in there and previous episodes of 'Misfits' and 'Doctor Who', but what sets ‘Looper’ aside is that it puts these troubling, moral dilemmas up on the screen, front and centre, instead of skirting round them. There is no denying the hard edge that this film has. It is unflinching both emotionally and in its wince-inducing scenes of bloody violence.

I was aware of the Rian Johnson’s (writer and director) work because of his involvement with the band The Mountain Goats but I’d never seen any of his feature work before. Based on the evidence of ‘Looper’ I’ve very excited to see where he goes next.

As I’ve said before; cerebral, emotionally engaging science-fiction is becoming a bit of a dying art but films like ‘Looper’ reassure me that there are still people out that that dream big and tell wonderful stories. I loved it.

So, as the Autumn draws in and everything is cold and miserable let’s have some...

Reasons to be Cheerful :-)
1. New Les Mis posters! One is called ‘Russell Crowe is sad’ and the other one is entitled ‘Look at Hugh Jackman’s Beautiful face’. Les Misérables is out in the UK on 11th January 2013 :-)

2. There is a sequel to ‘Woman in Black’ is going to be directed by one of the guys that directed ‘Misfits’! Tom Harper directed some of the episodes from series 1 and the Christmas Special from series 2 (which I loved). In all honesty I’m not sure if ‘Woman in Black’ needed a sequel but it’s happening and I think, based on his past work, Harper is up to the challenge. That doesn’t mean I’ll be going to see it though, I don’t think I’m completely over my horror-phobia!

That’s all for today!

Goodbye till next time :-)
x x x x x x x x x x x x

"We had no idea what kind of person we were getting..."

Hello Everyone :-)

What do these films have in common? ‘TT: Closer to the Edge’,  ‘Super Size Me’, ‘Marley’, ‘Man on Wire, ‘Tabloid’, ‘Catfish’, ‘Cave of Forgotten Dreams’ (I love Werner Hertzog) and not forgetting my favourite film of 2011, ‘Senna’. Answer: They’re all documentaries. Too long documentaries have lived almost solely in the televisual medium, often discovered late at night on BBC4 or More4 in a forgotten corner of the schedule.

Now, film makers are changing that. Documentaries are becoming more cinematic and catching the imagination of wider audiences, none more so that a film I was lucky enough to see during a week off work, ‘The Imposter’.

It’s a story so bizarre that I can scarcely believe it’s true, honestly if someone wrote this down as a work of fiction, went to a studio and said “I want to make this film” they’d be laughed out the place because it’s so unbelievable. ‘The Imposter’ is about the 1997 case of the French con-man Frédéric Bourdin, who impersonated Nicholas Barclay, a Texan boy who had disappeared at the age of 13.

The Director, Bart Layton, has done a fantastic job on this film. Every element has been carefully considered and it all comes together as a brilliantly cinematic, intriguing feature. I loved it.

Partly shunning the traditional archive footage and talking-head approach, the decision to include dramatised footage is an interesting one that ultimately pays off. These sections are basically used to show us things that weren’t documented on video by the family or news reporters at the time but the scenes are synced with the talking head dialogue. I like this, it’s not as cheesy as full-on dramatised scenes and they’re directed really well; very dramatic and full of tension.

It is universally acknowledged that in situations such as this there is no clear version of the truth, everyone has their own version of events. I think the film makers have been pretty even handed in their approach to ‘the truth’. ‘The Imposter’ could play out as a family wronged by an opportunistic con-man but the exploration of character makes it so much more than that.

Layton has chosen to film Bourdin’s talking-head pieces in close up so you scrutinise everything he does and he shows you just how engaging, funny and almost likeable he is… I said almost!

Your moral compass really starts spinning when little bits of information about Barclay’s family begin to surface. No one spells it out for you but things like ‘at the time of his disappearance Nicholas had three tattoos which Bourdin copied so he wouldn’t be found out’ are dropped into the dialogue. It takes a little time to settle before you start to think ‘wait a minute… what kind of family lets a 13 year old get tattoos?’ Towards the end of the feature I think the balance tips more in the family’s favour but the film never depicts them as being squeaky clean and it’s these shades of moral greyness that make the film so interesting.

It makes me happy that we live in a world where documentaries such as this are given the acclaim they deserve. ‘The Imposter’ is cinematic, engaging and doesn’t give a cut and dry answer to any of the questions raised for its duration. It’s a thoroughly entertaining watch that deserves as big an audience as it can get.

Just an added extra, big thank you to The Electric Cinema in Birmingham for putting ‘The Imposter’ on in the first place. Due to the fact multiplexes continue to shun documentaries it’s left to our Nation’s independent cinemas to give the public what they want and the Electric do just that. Their cinema is gorgeous, the staff are lovely and they have some of the nicest cakes I’ve ever had the pleasure of eating! If you live in the midlands and love films, pay them a visit; it’s a wonderful place :-)

Well that was plenty to be happy about but as I’m a firm believer in never being able to have too much of a good thing lets have a look at some…

Reasons to be Cheerful :-)

1.  ‘Skyfall’ is out soon! The trailer looks fantastic and more than anything I’m looking forward to seeing the gorgeous Ben Whishaw as Q! I love a man with a thing for geeky mugs (I may or may not have made that picture my desktop background…)!

2. Speaking of the lovely Mr Whishaw, The Hour is returning this season for a second series! Reading about the new series is so exciting! The BBC have clearly peaked at my Christmas list because EVERYONE I love is going to be in it! The established cast are going to return Ben ‘did I mention I adore him?’ Whishaw will be back as Freddie, Romola Garai returns as Bel and Dominic West will be playing Hector. New additions to the cast are Hannah Tointon of Inbetweeners fame, Tom Burke who I absolutely love from his wonderful performance in ‘Third Star’ and the alter-ego of everyone’s favourite sweary, spin-doctor, Peter Capaldi. I am so excited about this development! Can’t wait for it to start :-)

That’s everything I have for today!

Goodbye till next time :-)

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

“What can I say? I give good wife”

Hello Everyone :-)

I’m not a massive fan of Colin Farrell; I’ve never been bowled over by anything in which I’ve seen him. However a few weeks ago I had access to free cinema tickets and the person in charge of those tickets wanted to go and see the remake of 'Total Recall' staring the aforementioned Mr Farrell. Here’s what I thought (please bear in mind I haven’t seen the original film).

Farrell plays Douglas Quaid, a factory worker that commutes from the 'Colony' (Australia) to United Federation of Britain (UFB) to work in a factory and comes home to his wife Lori (Kate Beckinsale) every day. After being plagued by a recurring dream featuring a mystery woman (Jessica Biel) Quaid decides to visit ‘Rekall’, a company that implants artificial memories. This visit re-awakens part of Quaid’s mind and he realises that he may not be who he thinks he is…

This all sounds brilliant. Unfortunately ‘Total Recall’ is an utterly dull film.

It looks nice, which is good, but its visual cues aren’t the most original in the world. The UFB looks like a city-scape from ‘Minority Report’ and the Colony looks like a replica of Los Angeles à la ‘Blade Runner’. It’s not always a bad thing to invoke these two films but unfortunately in this case it wasn’t a wise move. Both ‘Minority Report’ and‘Blade Runner’ are much higher concept and are a lot classier affairs than this is; borrowing their visual styles is just highlighting the fact that you aren’t watching either of those films in the worst possible way.

The whole thing is a ridiculous male wish-fulfilment fantasy. There is a sequence shortly after Colin Farrell discovers he isn’t actually a factory worker, he’s really a secret spy, that he, the beautiful Jessica Biel and the gorgeous Kate Beckinsale are in a weird traveling lift and the two women are having a massive cat fight over him. It’s ridiculous. I actually think I said aloud “Oh for God’s sake!” Is it too much to ask for a coherent plot and interesting characters?!?! Is it really?!?!

Bless him, Colin Farrell tries his best but he’s not given a great deal to do. His character discovers that he isn’t who he thinks he is and that’s about it. There’s a little bit about him wanting to learn to play the piano that pays off in quite a nice way but that’s pretty much all the character development he’s afforded.

Jessica Biel might as well not be there. To my mind she’s got the on screen charisma of a mahogany sideboard and that’s when she’s given something decent to work with (for example she’s ok in ‘The Illusionist’). In this she has next to nothing to do, in fact I can’t even remember her character’s name. Seriously aside from pulling Colin Farrell into a car and wearing combat trousers circa 1998 she does nothing. They may as well have had a cardboard cut-out of her on screen.

Kate Beckinsale has the best role. She starts off as the primary antagonist and she excels at this. It’s hardly surprising that in a film DIRECTED BY HER HUSBAND she is given the best role, but she does it well. The antagonist role gets a bit murky when Brian Cranston turns up as the big, Boss, Bad-Guy Cohaagen. Frankly, Beckinsale is a darn sight more threatening than Cranston and this makes his character weirdly redundant.

It’s not a complete failure. Like I said it looks really nice and obviously the digital effects meet the standard to which audiences have become accustomed, but I think that’s part of the problem. Audiences aren’t being challenged with this film, on any level. The story leaves A LOT to be desired but it’s not just that; visually we’ve seen it all before, we’ve seen these characters before; it’s the same story on a different day and I don’t think it’s good enough.

‘Total Recall’is fun to look at but completely unremarkable. Sci-fi, by definition, affords film-makers with endless scope with which they can dream big. Why someone would take an interesting premise and turn it into a film as boring as this is beyond me, they had a $125 million budget and all this is what we get?!?! Directors should strive to make something that challenges audiences, not churn out mindless rubbish.

After that boring parp I think I need some…

Reasons to be Cheerful :-)

1. New Hobbit Trailer! More of the Dwarves this time and I must say, in spite of my trepidations about the three film split, it looks wonderful :-)

2. James Gunn has been confirmed as Writer and Director for Marvel's ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’ in news that surprised NO ONE! I’m pleased though, Gunn’s previous film ‘Super’ was wildly misjudged in places but it’ll be interesting to see what he does with such high-profile property. It’s going to be a challenge to bring that story to the big screen so I’ll be watching developments with great interest!

3. 'Wreck-It Ralph' has some new character posters and they’re great! I think it looks fantastic; the only thing that I’m sad about is that we in the UK have to wait till the 15^thFebruary 2013 to see it!!!

That’s everything for today!

Goodbye till next time :-)
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

"Negotiation's over. Sentence is death"

Hello Everyone :-)

Karl Urban is fast becoming a bit of a hero in Nerd-tastic circles. He came to prominence in one side of the Geeky Holy Trinity ‘Lord of the Rings’ (the other two pillars of the blessed trio being Doctor Who and Harry Potter), as the devastatingly handsome Eomer of Rohan. He capitalised on this popularity by taking on the role of Leonard McCoy, aka Bones, the devastatingly handsome Chief Medical Officer of the Enterprise in the 2009 reboot of ‘Star Trek’. Urban’s latest role is in ‘Dredd’ where he plays Judge Dredd a devastatingly… oh … erm… well, he plays Judge Dredd, a character from the comic ‘2000 AD’.

In the future, the east coast of North America is covered by Mega-City One, a vast, violent metropolis containing 800 million residents. The massive population has forced the legal system to adapt and employ Judges; autonomous individuals that dispense justice across the city.
‘Dredd’follows the titular Judge (Karl Urban) across a day in Mega-City One, where he is asked to evaluate rookie Judge Anderson (Olivia Thirlby). The pair get called to Peach Trees, a gargantuan tower block that is the home, school and workplace of thousands of citizens. The Judges discover that the block is being run by the ‘Ma-Ma Clan’ headed up by Ma-Ma (Lena Headey) who is producing the narcotic ‘Slo-Mo’, a drug that makes it seem like time is passing at 1% it’s usual speed. Judges Dredd and Anderson are pitted against the block and its gang inhabitants in an attempt to bring the guilty to justice.

Straight off the bat, I have no experience of Judge Dredd prior to seeing this film. I haven't seen the original film (although I’m reliably informed it’s dreadful…geddit? DREDDful?!?!), I haven't read any of the comics; all I was aware of was the bit that I read in Empire magazine and that he's some sort of Judge, Jury and Executioner all rolled into one. With that in mind, I really, really liked 'Dredd'.

I've read about the writing process Alex Garland undertook with 'Dredd' and I'm pleased with the direction he's taken. Initially he wanted to write about one of Dredd’s comic book enemies, Judge Death. As I said I’m not as clued up on the Dredd-Universe as I should be so I had no idea who Judge Death was, a bit of reading later and it was clear, even to a muggle like me, that this character would have been a nightmare to introduce, especially in the first episode of a proposed franchise. Garland has taken the best route possible and started the series with a ‘day in the life’ concept. This works really well. It’s engaging enough for people that are already aware of the Dredd stories (like the person I went to see the film with) and simple enough for the Dredd-Virgins (like me) to understand.

It plays like a platform videogame, I'm not sure whether this is in order to accommodate the Tower Block setting or as a result of it; either way it works really well. This has caused some to point the finger and shout about how it’s ripping off ‘The Raid’ but I don’t think that’s the case and besides, even if it was I think there’s enough room in this world for two action-packed, tower block centric films.

Lena Headey seems to be carving a career out for herself playing the evilest of evil bitches. Not only does she play the abhorrent Cersei Lannister in ‘Game of Thrones’ but in ‘Dredd’ she plays Ma-Ma. Ma-Ma is an ex-hooker turned Gang-Boss Drug Lord and is completely bat-shit crazy and scary as hell. Headey plays her like she does not give one solitary shit, not even about herself.
The bulk of the emotional character development is given over to Judge Anderson, the rookie Judge with psychic abilities. Olivia Thirlby is someone whose work I’m unfamiliar with but I think she did quite well in this. Anderson’s arc from nervous rookie to dispenser of Justice is good and I liked the scenes between her and Kay (Wood Harris), one of Ma-Ma’s head henchmen, where she gets information out of him in a way that only she can.
I don’t think I’ve ever said that a deadpan, emotionless performance was great but in ‘Dredd’ Karl Urban’s performance is just that. Dredd is a character with a completely black and white view of the world; you're either innocent or guilty, to him there is nothing in between. You may have read about what I'm calling 'Helmet-gate'. I'm reliably informed that in the comics Dredd never removes his helmet but in the 1995 adaptation of the eponymous Judge he does. Fans of the comic were in uproar about this massive oversight and thankfully this version does not make the same mistake. As I said I have no knowledge of the character other than what I’ve seen in this film but it does make sense to keep the helmet on him, it helps maintain the idea of him being a faceless representative of justice. He’s a proper BADASS!

It’s definitely an 18 certificate; there’s plenty of violence and scenes not for the faint-hearted. This hard-line approach works in the context Mega-City One and I never thought it was violence for violence sake. It sounds really simple when you write it down but I really think that’s on the of the film’s biggest strengths. ‘Dredd’ doesn’t seem to be a big hitter at the box office which has me baffled; I’d have expected this kind of thing to go down well with audiences. This may be due to the limited 2d release; I know I thought twice before relenting to the despotic chokehold of 3d. Needless to say I don’t think the extra dimension added anything to my cinematic experience.

As an exciting action film with a good cast and plenty of firepower, you can’t go far wrong with ‘Dredd’. Its simplicity works well and gives a good foundation for potential sequels that’ll give us more of an insight into the Dredd universe. I know there aren’t many 2d showings about but I’d still say this deserves to be seen on the big screen.

Reasons to be Cheerful :-)
1. Amy Adams has been talking about Man of Steel! It’s due out next year and Adams is playing Superman’s leading lady, Lois Lane :-) Obviously no one is giving a great deal away but the Trailer doesn’t look half bad so I’m being positive!

2. New Hobbit photos! I know there have been all sorts of news about ‘The Hobbit’ and the fact it’s being divided up into three films. I’m keeping an open mind and being optimistic :-)

That’s everything I’ve got for today!

Goodbye till next time :-)
x x x x x x x x x x x x x