The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (indeed)

'The Hobbit' is a charming tale by Tolkien - sweet, uncomplicated and good fun. And not at all bloated or lengthy. But alas, Jackson has ignored the tone and the length at his peril. I don't want to be another voice adding to the complaining heap but, as a diehard fan of the LOTR trilogy, in which one has to give credit to Jackson and the production team for doing so damn amazingly well and giving the fantasy genre some credibility on screen, I expected therefore, that Middle-earth would be in their capable hands once more.

Overall, the film was enjoyable but my main issues with it was that it was bloated, boring and just plain unnecessarily nostalgic, with less than subtle references to LOTR, as if  Jackson thought his audience would love all of that. I am one who did not - though the first ten minutes were beautiful, the rest of the film felt a little confused. It felt as if they forced it to be a little too epic - when all the story really is, is the quest to defeat the dragon so the dwarves can have their home city back. Tis all.

There was too much 'padding', and if such material had been in the book, the editor would have taken a red pen to it and reminded Tolkien that this is a child-like tale - keep all the extra epic stuff to LOTR, where it makes sense - and seeing as the audience has all seen the grand scale stuff in LOTR, we kind of don't want to see it again, almost exactly the same way (same shot pattern sequences, sweeping over our heroes running over bridges, lots of clobbering of orcs and goblins, dwarves hating the elves because they didn't come to their aid, echoing Rohan's displeasure with Gondor in LOTR, yada yada - wait, I've seen these same sequences before ten years ago...damn) As a result, it was not to nearly as funny as it needed to be and far too serious when it needn't be.

The action is always top notch but still could have a third of them cut down - we were far too long in the goblin city place, far too long having the wargs chase our heroes across the plains, that brown wizard... It's as if Jackson's weight is inversely proportional to the film's weight - the less of him there is, there more 'fat' is thrown on screen. Ok, that's a little mean but still...*snicker*

The production design team should be given almost all of the credit in bringing Middle Earth so majestically to life. There are still plenty of jaw-dropping reveals of cities, landscapes and general detail to all of the film's mise-en-scene. It's really this that immerses one in the world and the story. Also, Martin Freeman does a FAB job of playing adorable Bilbo and no one is complaining about Ian McKellen reprising his role as Gandalf.

I'm not going to say much more, as I'm really trying to avoid giving away spoilers but to be honest, if you've seen LOTR, you've kind of seen it all before. The only thing that has me excited is the prospect of the dragon scenes. Canna wait. But because of two extra films, it looks like we're going to be MADE to wait. *sigh*

VERDICT: 6.5/10

Skyfall

Another film of the year that I got sucked into because of hype. I'm not feeling a great need to write much about the latest Bond film, which in due, in part, to the fact that I left the cinema feeling somewhat underwhelmed (should have known once Adele's voice rang out over the opening credit sequence - yeh, I said it, I don't like her).

Skyfall was a good and brave departure from the usual Bond fare, though enough of the typical elements are thrown in to still give it that flavour, so I appreciated the focus on M in this film. The only thing is that it was a little 'boring' and much of the story was just so messy and blase.

Firstly, there was a lot of talk about Javier Bardem as the villain but lo, he did not meet my expectation AT all. It was a classic, rookie mishap of 'telling' and not 'showing' vis a vis 'baddie' Silva. Because sorry, as a viewer, I didn't find him scary at all. We are only told that he is frightening - first rather convincingly by Severine, played by what's her name, who had NO role whatsoever, other than to fill the 'damaged, sexy girl Bond gets off with'.  Side note - apart from Dame Dench, no other woman on the screen was a three dimensional character - I know, I know, I should expect that, right? But I did expect a wee bit more from Naomi Harris - for all she was a bantering device for Bond - I know, I know! Back on track *SPOILERS ALERT* - when we arrive at the weird abandoned island Silva has as a base, we're only told that he was able to clear the place out by spreading some rumour and the people fled as if Diablo had come among them (might have added that bit in myself) Ok. He's badass.

Only when we meet him, we realise he's a dude with serious mummy issues with an agenda to get at M because, wah, he was screwed over on a mission. Poor show. The closest to badass was when he blew a hole in subterranean London and a tube crashed through - oh, but thank god, there were no people in it! (Sorry not that I'm a sicko who wants to see people dying en masse or whatever...)

So it comes down the old phrase, 'a film is only as good as its villain'. And the baddie was poor for me - not that it was Bardem but rather the writing of him. The only positive that came out of it was the conflict it created within M, so that we witness the crumbling pillar-like resolve of this stalwart figure. And the unwavering loyalty of Bond. That then led the best and commendable scene where Bond races through the streets of Westminster to save M, while she delivers a speech quoting Tennyson. Good show.

And also, what was a grave disappointment was the whole 'Skyfall' idea itself - in the trailers and film we're made to believe that something traumatising happened to Bond because he can't even get through word association when the name comes up. Oooh, dark intensity. Only we find out it's the old family mansion and he hid in the secret passage under the house for two days when he was orphaned. Are we shown that? Does Bond get uneasy flashbacks/feelings on his return to the mansion, or when he escapes through the passage? No. Instead, this back story, this psychological pivotal moment is neatly explained by the old Scot dude when he shows said passage to M. Hmm. Took all the drama out of that, Mendes. All potential psychological intensity was barely explored, indicative through one liners that are left hanging and lazy: "Orphans always make the best recruits." Ok...

Highlights were the scene in that tower in Shanghai with all those lights, projections and reflections; the opening chase scene through Istanbul, the fiery climax at the Scottish mansion, Daniel Craig delivering flawlessly and most of it being set in London and/or Britain.

VERDICT: 6/10.

Sridevi's majestic return in 'English Vinglish'

So I took the plunge and went for 'Bollywood' the other weekend. Shocker, I know. And p.s., the reason Bollywood is in quote marks is because the film, English Vinglish is a triumph and doesn't remotely feel like any of those lumpy, bloated and trippy saturated things that are churned out of Mumbai, supposedly passing as 'films'.

And so it is that English Vinglish rises to the highest echelons of film-making, another blessed example of brilliant writing, superb casting contained within a tight, focussed narrative. And of course, the wonderful Sridevi is the binding ingredient to it all, so long missing from our screens, so sorely missed because for once, the female character is central in the true sense, her seemingly 'small' battle made profound and dare I say, even epic, by an explorative and sensitive story.

Killing it in NYC in my 'exotic' sari bitches!

*POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT*
She plays an Indian housewife, Shashi, famed for her super tasty ladoos (if you don't know what ladoos are, shame on you) not able to really speak or understand English, and severely put down by her bratty daughter who makes out she is some unworthy human being for not being able to master the lingua franca of the world. When Shashi's sister asks her to come to New York to help arrange her daughter's upcoming wedding, she has to go there all by herself initially. Once there, after an encounter with a overly grouchy woman at the till of a grungy cafe, (scene is typical Indian melodrama here), Shashi decides to learn English in secret by taking a class everyday, which promises she will have mastered the language in four weeks. Hilarity ensues - or there about - as well poignant moments of triumph. The film doesn't skate over the seemingly insignificant trials, which only wonderfully emphasises how potentially inhibited you are if you don't know the language (totally scared me off Tokyo, can you imagine trying to navigate the underground there? And I'm somewhat 'worldly').

Basically, it was a joy to watch, it was neatly paced and I just stared up at Sridevi absorbing what I have so been starved of since circa 2002. The writing and the character was perfectly considered for her  and she did it every justice, so props also goes to Gauri Shinde, the writer-director.  I hope other 'actresses' in Bollywood can take note and aspire to this but I doubt it.  Even the supporting cast were strong and thank god they cast *actual* American Indians as American Indians (it's a deal breaker when you have Indians pretending they're American Indian or British Indian because they cannot do it, or when Dutch or Eastern European people are cast as Americans/British - Lagaan passed the test and that's when you know the film makers took their job seriously and respected the work). Also, the filmmakers respected the location and setting, New York, rather than having people prance around it all shiny like. Aside from some 'funky fresh' montage sequences, the cinematography served the story and protagonist, without flashing itself around saying 'look at me!' And as a result, people, it was gorge.

Finally, what got me the most and raised the film from damn good to exceptional, was the profound pearls of insight the film bestowed, illustrating how such a simple story of struggle can really mean so much and teach you great lessons about the experience of existence, namely family and the 'art' of communication without understanding words and shit (the killer dialogue was when Shashi admits at the end that when you don't like yourself, everything connected to your life appears bad to you, so you then get attracted to new things. But when you learn to love yourself, that 'bad' life transforms and looks wonderful again - woo, some deep ancient wisdom right there). Did I cry? Yes and you know it's got you then.

Ok, I'll wrap by saying that English Vinglish is a great triumph - not only in its high quality but also proving that not all is lost in Indian cinema, where you can still have a great symbiosis of writing and acting. Brava!

VERDICT: 10/10

The Dark Knights Rises to an impressive conclusion

Chris Nolan delivers a near triumphant conclusion to one of the most successful superhero franchise.

This highly anticipated film is not without its flaws- the voice of Bane, various plot mishaps, motivations of villains with silly back stories - for most superhero films have a certain quota of ridiculousness but nonetheless, it stayed away from farcical and conveyed some respect for character storytelling, in direct contrast to the apathetically vomited 'story' that was Avengers Assemble.
Moreover, I'm not a huge fan of this caped crusader, so I had less preconceived boxes that needed ticking, so it didn't fail me on too many accounts. This doubtless, plays a large part in my perception of the film because, as with previous posts, one can tell that once I'm acquainted source mythology etc, then I'm really particular about how they adapt it.

I did fear that the plot would be complex or a little confusing like Dark Knight, yet this film's plot considerably more straightforward and digestible for the average viewer - it's essentially about how the hero struggles with wanting to returning to the fray and being somewhat 'behind' in terms of real skill needed to overcome the bigger and badder enemies. Nevertheless, there were a couple of twists I did not foresee, both of which are saved until the end, which then elevated the plot from being somewhat run-of-the-mill, though arguably it was predominantly predictable. It doesn't break any new ground in that respect but I don't think this conclusion needed it - it was just more dark, more intense etc.

Despite its length, I wasn't bored at all and for once, it paid off to go in with relatively low expectations-  I literally went to see Anne Hathaway as Cat woman, and she was amazingly brilliant, so I  genuinely came out surprised and pleased, finally caring about Bruce Wayne. As such, the last five minutes had me sitting up wondering and the way Nolan decided to finish it just meant I left with mad respect for him.

*SPOILERS ALERT*
Joseph Gordon Levitt was a good addition, though his character's claim about recognising that Wayne was Batman right away was dubious - something about hiding anger and masks which came off rather overcooked. Michael Caine is always a gem and he elevated the film in each of his scenes.

My main issue with the film was the character of Bane - it's always a bit rubbish when you realise the big baddy is working for someone else and only because, well what do you know?,  he has a heart after all, as he's doing it for the one he loves. And while there were quite a few 'suspend your disbelief' moments, (the Ras Al Ghul/prison malarkey), it was pretty ridiculous how the thousands of cops who get trapped underground for 3 months emerge, fit and ready to fight - even the diabetic ones?

Additionally, I don't think the film should be a 12A - it's far too violent. I don't see how anyone under 12 coping with the 'back breaking' scene well. It was relentless and as such, the film should be a 12 - I think the British Board of Film Classification or whatever have forgotten that the rating of just '12' does exist.

VERDICT: 9/10

Avengers Assemble - a nonsensical mish-mash

When the trailers came out for this one, I really wasn't interested. But then people started saying it was 'way good'. So against my better judgement, I sat down to enjoy this and disliked almost every minute of it severely - apart from any moments with Mark Ruffalo who outclassed everyone.

This is what the kids' think is cool right? My get up is totes eye catching

**SPOILERS ALERT** The first five minutes killed it for me. The motivation for the prime antagonist, Loki, was so weak and flimsy, I'm surprised it got past script development phase. The moment he started spouting nonsense about humans natural state is wanting to be submissive, I thought this is a pile of fecal matter. I mean really? It would have worked better if Loki referenced the fact that he was a part of a pantheon of divine beings worshiped centuries ago and so he kind of wants to resurrect that - that would have made sense. Instead, it was just because he was still pissed at big daddy O for ....yada yada, boring.

The rest of the movie didn't even try to make sense. Dr. Fury made no sense (who the hell is he, what's his purpose?), the Hulk made no sense. One minutes he's the ultimate weapon/a risk to everyone, friend or foe, the next he's righteously fighting for the good guys, perfectly aware of what side he should be on etc. And if he's so badass frightening, the petty attempts at all the guards etc reaching for their guns as protection each time they feared he would break out was stupid - guns clearly don't work and they know it. So....?? I mean when Capt America mentions how that stupid suit of is might be old fashioned and Dr. Fury replies that 'sometimes you need old fashioned' I wanted to lament out loud at the sheer lost nature of this film. So there's an other-worldly force about to descend on Earth and you want old fashioned, despite being in some behemoth airship that has some mega cloaking device?

I thought bringing superheroes together would create some interesting dynamics. It didn't - it was just each one trying to show how much stronger they were than the other. I really expected something a little more from Joss Whedon. After fifteen minutes I thought 'Ok, let's just treat this as popcorn fodder, let's not try and gauge some sense of story' (and with that flashed an image of a manuscript with a sad face while the producers turn to it and say 'Oh no, sorry, you're not making it into the film, we're even using the first draft as toilet paper.' - just tried to sketch a cartoon - it didn't really work) - even then, I was bored. That's right. I didn't basically care two hoots who came out of this nonsensical rabble.

The action was good, I will give it that, but that's hardly a compliment, seeing as we all know films can do the action sequences so well these days. And I guess the alien fish ship thing was interesting. But I think that was all that I found mildly engaging. Rubbish name, rubbish film. And what better way to end a rubbish movie with 'news' footage on grateful citizens gushing about how amazing it was the Captain America et al came to the rescue (that blondie that managed to get some coverage was blatantly a producer's daughter or something), with one kid COMPLETELY missing the point of how close the planet came to being overtaken by freaky aliens and peeing his pants with excitement at all the stuff blowing up - disregarding the insane amount of collateral that probably killed his best friends parents. Over inflated mulch and barf-ness.


This film gets a big thumbs down. VERDICT: 3/10.

Earth 2 Hub - Blog article on nature in film

Whoops, a little slow on posting this up here but the kind people at Earth 2.0 Hub have published an article I wrote for them about how film can be used to initiate the concept of integrating with nature. I basically wrote it in response to the whole idea that when we go about our days, our stories and our pursuits are completely human-centric and there's no sense of nature or the wider environment at all.

 The site has gone under a radical new transformation - looking all swish and exciting, so I'm grateful the post was released once the new site when live. 

I'm rather chuffed about penning this because for once, I don't take a middle ground and take a clear stance on the issue - i.e. being environmentalist doesn't require an 'add-on' mentality, it requires a whole shift in perspective.

If you have a mo, please check it out here and share if you fancy!

Also really thrilled that I'm on the contributors list.

Merci in advance :)

The Hunger Games - just misses the mark

Ok, so totes in dange of (sorry, sorry) - and again...! I'm in danger of sounding like a broken record when it comes to novel to film adaptations (and slightly aghast that peeps in the biz aren't reading my reviews as wonderful analyses of how adaptations could work and applying them to their own work - it's free consultancy, yo!)

Anyhow, getting back to the necessary task at hand - The Hunger Games viewing for moi et Arctic Bunny was last night. I had pegged this as a 'must see of 2012' as most others did and I refrained from reading reviews, though I cracked when Incredible Suit posted this week (gah!).

*SPOILERS ALERT* Dare I say it, but it was an all around decent film but exceptionally and lazily adapted from the book. It took too long to 'get to the good stuff' and there were some other obvious flaws that have nothing to do with flaws from the book itself - it's all down to the film-makers.

I kind of guessed at this the moment the film opened and we see Game-Maker, Seneca Crane talking to blue haired presenter (played solidly well by Stanley Tucci) - and it became a continual problem - removing us out of Katniss's POV and the games and into the 'behind-the-scenes' world of the Capitol. UGH. It completely leached the strength of menace that an antagonist has - seeing Presi Snow chatting to Crane on various occasions, I sat there trying to fathom why this was in the narrative at all. It's like seeing the most bad ass robot and then they take you to see it nuts and bolts - or find it works on water. Lame.  Another classic example is when Katniss is in that ante-room before entering the pod-lift into the arena. It's suspenseful stuff and then [cut], we're in that control room with some lady telling us 'Ok, they're in.' Geez - talk about removing oneself from the suspenseful moment of Katniss entering the arena in one seamless sequence. That warrants a hit to the head, editor. 

Another issues were Peeta and Katniss - it wasn't good chemistry between Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson, but Josh came across stronger in his performance as the 'boy with the bread'. Which also brings me to the 'bread' scene - why is it raining and why wasn't it made clear that Katniss was literally starving to death with nothing to take to her family? The flashbacks were lazy and confusing. There could have one sequence of 'father's death - starving - bread via Peeta - daffodil' but no, that would have been too simple. If we knew she was at the end of her tether, that moment would have been more significant and so to, their relationship. Instead, when it's time for Katniss to turn on the 'charm', it's not even obvious that she has turned on anything. And then we kept cutting to see Gale in District 12, *shakes head*. And if they'd done the bread scene properly, we'd have known that Katniss does whatever it takes to survive - she's survived near death before - this is her trait, her winning element - not the bow and arrow.

War Horse

There is something to be said about a film that is simply beautiful. It's not complicated, it's not trying too hard to create some supra aesthetic (*cough* Immortalz *cough*); it's content and natural approach brings together a lovely film.

I say lovely because I do not think it great exactly but War Horse's cinematography and composition is splendid and though I have not seen the play, it feels inspired by such tonal and mood set by the lighting within a theatre. Otherwise the sweeping shots of European countryside are wonderfully captured. And at the heart of it all is a splendid performance by a horse.

No risk of clunky dialogue and more emotional range than Kristen Stewart (boom!), the horse, Joey, is a wonderful personification of spirit. And yes, I do loves me a spirited animal character and one that can race across fields, wind sweeping through mane.

It's totally revived my childhood desire to have a horse companion.

All of this is set beside some touching human conflicts, displayed through Albert's father who has suffered through a previous war. The horrors of the First World War contrast to the romantic, picturesque opening in Devon and that animals are party to the brutal conflict, forced to race into fire and pull abominable heavy artillery brings home how awful it was on these creatures as well - human lives alone weren't lost in the thousands.

As with any Spielberg film, the performances are all first class, with Jeremy Irvine playing the heart and determination needed that sees him united with his horse. The rest of the stellar cast, including Benedict Cumberbatch and Emily Watson, all play their parts admirably and I was particularly impressed by Celine Buckens who plays Emilie, the French girl who takes in Joey and the black stallion (watch out for her). But no one comes close to the horse (or horses), who captures the film and resonates the universal truths about humanity (ironic? - nay!) and enduring friendship. And the script is tight, with no line wasted or arbitrary. Altogether it feels contained but epic - the winning combo for a masterfully made film and there are precious few directors who can balance this as Spielberg does.

In Speilberg's hands, the entire film is a moving experience with John William's soundtrack sustaining this throughout. I will understand that for some, this will not be their cup of tea. For me, it was completely my batch of favourite brew - soothing and warming with a bit of bittersweet bite (if you brew it strong - which I do). Not sure why I ended it on such a note but seeing as the film is made up largely of British contributions, I'll let it be.

VERDICT: 8/10.

'Hugo' - a far cry from being a masterpiece

I was rather excited about watching this - I had no interest when it initially came out but when I read a couple of reviews and saw the trailer, I was taken with its magical and exciting feel.

I think it aspired to be both those things but didn't quite reach them. The film is gorgeous to look at, the world of the station brought brilliantly to life and the it was pitted with some great moments but as a whole it was lacking and so drawn out. I was expecting something gripping that would have me utterly absorbed (thanks to the reviewer on IMDb - grrr) but I found myself wondering when it was going to kick start. There was too much time wasted on the annoying 'give me my notebook/No/I need it/No, go away thief/Give it back' exchange. I suspended my frustration hoping their would be an intriguing pay off in the mystery around the automaton, the father dying etc - but no it never came about. Instead it became about dreams and the first hooray years of film making and 'searching for an adventure' but not really having one other than to unveil the history of 'Papa George' played by Ben Kingsley. And Chloe Moretz's (she is everywhere these days!) character was rather useless - she was more of a half device to bring about a little colour but she had no real reason in the story as a whole. Her concluding speech as narration at the end was poignant but it didn't match the journey of the main character, Hugo, played bravely but passably by Asa Butterfield.

For a Scorcese film, it was not up to the task for me at all. As a child's story, it was still so drawn out but it did have the feel and a pace more akin to a book unfolding measuredly and assuredly, with the character's pivotal moments easing in rather than 'hitting' home. I think 'The Artist' probably makes a better go at celebrating early film making - in 'Hugo' it falls rather flat. There were other small vignettes of life and 'opening up', shown by Richard Griffith's character and Sacha Baron Cohen's character but he's not nearly menacing enough as an antagonist.

Some people are calling this film a masterpiece but the story is littered with problems and as a viewer, I just couldn't engage. I think what gets me most is that it has so much promise and beauty yet it failed to bring it all home.

In the words of Mooderino on the blog, Moody Writing, which I concur with:

'A sweet message about the love of imagination, but quite a long, drawn out narrative structure with lots of Tell me/It's a secret/ But you must/No, I can't/Oh, go on/No, really, I can't... And quite a few plot holes too, where stuff that's important one minute is totally forgotten the next.'

VERDICT: 6/10

Review of Mission Impossible 4

This is not my usual cinema fare - I tend to wait for such movies to appear on TV or whatever but sometimes you gotta get out of the house.

I will readily admit that I *enjoyed* it as an entertaining, action led film. Otherwise there is perfect reason to label it pants on the grounds of story, plot, yada yada. I still don't really get the whole IMF thing and why it always blamed for stuff - the sort of cathartic release that Ethan Hunt's character gets from putting that all behind him at the end of MI3 gets kind of wiped clean away.

*SPOILER ALERT*
There just was no character drive other than to stop the Russian whacko starting a nuclear war. It would have been more interesting if the antagonist wasn't bad just for the sake of it. As a result, Ethan has nothing to overcome other than crazy stunt work. The only character to have a 'battle' of some kind was the agent chick and well, that was dry as...as the Sahara. Actually the 'analyst' character does have an arc per se but again that's just resolved by a conversation, yet that was a relatively 'intelligent' dynamic, I suppose.

But the fact that it's directed by Brad Bird means you don't really linger on such issues - you get propelled along and the visual spectacle doesn't disappoint. You cannot help but be impressed by Cruise's shimmying up the what's-it hotel in Dubai. But that tracking device working in a sandstorm - pssht, yeh right! And I love how Ethan happens to pick up the most trendy leather jacket from some random washing line, with badass hood and evra-tin!

There was a fair few laughs generated by Simon Pegg's character (plus the 'Bollywood' scene with Anil Kapoor was major - for once he was in the *perfect* role!) and the jet setting between locations gave it a Bond-like feel but otherwise the film didn't feel punchy enough, though it left it with a sweet moment and the promise that the gang can get back together to another impossible mission of some kind, always operating underground, while we mere mortals plod on obliviously.

But I did enjoy it, despite all that it lacked - weird, right? Lunar activity clearly...or probably because it wasn't in 3D!

VERDICT: 6/10

My top films of 2011

Ok, so 2011 is drawing to a close and I'm jumping on the bandwagon and blogging about my top movies of 2011 (can anyone say 'No original content'?).

I've been surprisingly blah about the movie offerings of this year and as such, the ones I have ended up rating, have taken me by surprise - in a good way.

2012 looks to be far more exciting for me as a viewer - The Hobbit, The Hunger Games and War Horse are all must see films for me - the kind of ones that actually raise my heart beat and have the hair on the back of my neck standing up.

But before looking ahead, let's look back at the ones that got the thumbs up from me, in ascending order:

#5 - Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
An avid fan like meself was desperate for this film to do it's thing and bring the series home - it did but without the serious finish to adequately top it off. It underperformed but it was the end, so deservedly wins a place on the list. Read the full review here.

#4 - Ides of March
Classic example of brilliant casting, contained and focused narrative, enough to keep you thoroughly engaged without needing to throw explosions and mega SFX our way. Full review here.

#3 - Kung Fu Panda 2
This was just good fun and had me laughing loads and you need a good comedy in there. To be honest, Bridesmaids should also be mentioned as a great one too, though it was a lot less comedic than I thought and a lot more poignant. So Po wins out for the comedy value. Review here.

#2 -  True Grit
As with #4 on the list, you canna beat good casting, solid script etc. Plus Hailee Steinfeld was so amazing, I'm just honoured the Coen brothers brought that on screen to show us. Review here.

#1 -  X-Men: First Class
This one took me totes my surprise - it had a little bit of everything: solid performances, great action, a smattering of laughs and intense drama. It was an all rounder. Read the review here.









And if you care to bother to know which films I didn't even want to see (and you may argue, I missed out on)

- Rise of the Planet of the Apes
The title alone was offensive to me - did anyone tell the creators that 'of the' twice in a title is just plain ugly?
- Twilight: Breaking Dawn
Let's not even go there.
- Immortalz
I put a 'z' on the end to demonstrate how it lacks any semblance of creditability whatsoever.
- Hangover Part 2
You just knew it was going to be appalling, even if no 1 was a laugh.
- One Day
I couldn't stand the book and didn't finish it - why would I want to watch Anne Hathaway play that annoying Emma for 2 hours?
- Thor, Captain America, Green Lantern, Transformers
Yeh, no.


Films I wanted to see:
- The Help
- Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Well, let me know your thoughts and best wishes for Christmas and New Years!

The Ides of March - London Film Festival Review

I was very fortunate to be invited along to the premiere of the film at the LFF. I have taken ages to coming around and writing this review, so I reckon I'll be giving a rather brief (perhaps vague?) review of it, as its not as immediate in my mind as I would like. Let's see what Memory dredges up!

This film is a well put together, well acted piece and is commendable on many accounts. Mr. Clooney himself, when introducing the film, said it was nice to have a film like this that wasn't all explosions and insane action sequences. And George is right of course - for all of you that follow this blog regularly (you don't need to scoff!), you will know how I champion a well contained narrative and impressive acting/casting.

Don't I look sinister? But I'm a Democrat, thumbs up!

I love American politics - all the intrigue and the back-hand deals and the veneer of imperious dignity, reminiscent of Ancient Rome which the USAns love to emulate (and hence the title). The film goes through these layers and peels them back one by one - starting with idealistic but robust faith and belief displayed through Ryan Gosling character's trust and enthusiasm for the candidate he campaigns for, Governor Morris. Gosling is really quite impressive and sustains our journey through his story as he descends into the messy business of presidential campaigning, with revenge, affairs yada yada all there. Only this doesn't go crazy and though melodrama could be used as a term for the film, there is a more subdued tone - the tension is palatable in scenes but the dramatic moments are 'off stage' which presents a sort of interesting Greek tragedy feel, such as when Stephen listens to Molly's (Evan Rachel Wood) voice messages, the intern he has a fling with.

The writing is solid - nothing to find fault, for there is great balance of quick banter, measured words and comedy. In terms of pace, it's constantly engaging with just enough intrigue and you are allowed room to admire the content because it's also in the capable hands of Philip Seymour Hoffman and Paul Giamatti - and Mr. Clooney himself, who has less screen time than you might think but makes it count. The confrontational scene between Morris and Stephen (Gosling) is in a closed kitchen of some pub/restaurant and full of shadows. It's wonderfully symbolic as we understand how dark the world has become for Stephen.

There's great observations about loyalty, the price of one's mistakes, who really pulls the strings and how one political party can be so pitted against one another within their own ranks - all very Roman. The end shot is brilliantly done and sums up the film and Clooney's directing (lots of lingering shots). I'm not going to say what it is - go watch it and find out.

Solid is a word I would use, so while I was more than satisfied with the film, I'm not sure it's a breakthrough one and stands simply as a good example of good film making.

VERDICT: 8.4/10

London Film Festival Review of 'Children Who Chase Lost Voices from Deep Below'

Let me start by saying how long winded the title is, for doubtless the true Japanese name got lost in translation and we end up with something rather misleading because a) there is only one child that 'chases' the voices and b) the said voices are not really 'lost'? Unless I totes didn't get that from the film and missed something integral - which was a recurring feeling throughout this vividly beautiful but heavily complex animated film (which means the title is actually sort of a reflection of the content).

While it is rather safe to assume that this is child's tale, with our main gal, Asuna being no older than 11 (methinks), the story is rather heavy handed and grave. I enjoyed the opening of the film; we see the landscape that Asuna lives in and it's just stunning; the detailing is astounding and each frame is nothing short of a masterpiece - it leaves one rather wide eyed with awe at the arduous production process behind it all. But pretty pictures alone do not a great film make.

And as such, Makoto Shinkai, the director behind the film, does not quite measure up to Miyazaki, who is often compared to. This film is more Spirited Away than Princess Mononoke, though there are some clear nods to the latter film. *SPOILER ALERT* It takes awhile for our heroine to visit this underworld dimension, one that mixes several mythologies (with lots of Latin terms and references) but uses the Japanese Shintoist legend of Izanagi and Izanami at its heart. What I found odd about Asuna's motivation to go to this underworld where a human can resurrect a lost one, was that she follows a pull exerted by the mysterious appearance (and disappearance) of the boy Shun. Early on, we understand Asuna's father passed away when she was very little and a few references and flashbacks led one to think something about the father's passing or past would be relevant, not least because the special 'clavis' crystal that Asuna comes  to have came from him. Yet that was not relevant; the story danced about endlessly and though there was a definitive structure of a 'journey there and back', it got lost in the various layers and became a needlessly extended version of 'Let's understand the meaning of farewell.' I was waiting for the moment I, as a viewer, could get a grip and take hold on this journey and I'm not sure that came about.

There were plenty of poignant character moments but they lost their punch amongst the overly symbolic visuals and heavy, burdening story (which one could argue is the intended effect if the narrative is to deal with death and life). I just think I would have preferred it a smidge better if the heroine was a little older.

The soundtrack was a little too dramatic and in contrast to saturated symbolism, there were some really obvious 'on the nose' moments (light spilling through the frame when the hero character, Shin, comes to the rescue). In the end it needed to be reigned back to something a little more straightforward.

VERDICT: 6/10.

Tangled - a review of the film

Tangled is a beautiful film to watch - the animation is superb, the lighting that is rendered is simply gorgeous. The story is pretty darn fun too - shame about the appalling ending.

**SPOILERS ALERT**
I will summarise quickly as I have to write about Kung Fu Panda 2 and Yip Man as well. The story starts with a quick intro into the birth of Rapunzel (voiced by Mandy Moore) and it involves a magic Sun flower that bestows our little cherubin with magical qualities - via her hair of course - it glows and it's super cool - and interminably long which means it's a force unto itself but the animators come up with astoundingly creative ways for this young chirpy girl to not only deal with her hair (permanent neck ache anyone?) but it's sorta a real cool weapon and it has healing abilities.

Enter the lazy and uninspiring 'anti-hero' character who doesn't do much but add to the aesthetic and is well sort of fun..? (voice goes high like asking a question) And this is where the film falls on itself because it follows a rather predictable plot of two people needing to achieve something so they have a mutual need to work together vis a vis a 'deal' that is struck but each have their own agendas. The only depth is a clever plot line involving Rapunzel and her 'mother' - it brings up all issues of trust and love and is the only deep substance in the film - it has layers and all that but anyone else wonder what the hell that woman did all day?

BEFORE - cool healing hair! YAY

The 'hero' than spoils it all by trying to save Rapunzel at the end but makes a right pig's ear of it - he manages to get a fatal wound then bl**** cuts Rapunzel's hair off!!! WTF? I DID NOT get over that event at all because that hair was super amazing and could heal! Yes, there is the issue that baddy people would take advantage of that but apart from her evil 'mother', there was no one else who exploited her for her hair - that threat was never actually properly established and given weight and credibility because Rapunzel manages to travel all around the land and even reaches the kingdom etc and no one has exploited her for her hair - no one even appears to be even mildly bemused and/or intrigued that her hair cascades several feet behind her. And can we get over this lame 'teardrops save lives' malarkey? I must say I felt rather cheated because up until then the film was decent and in fact the characterisation of these animated people were really very, very good in terms of acting and performance - the expressions, the reactions - all very impressive.

AFTER - MY HAIR?!! Perfectly layered in choppy style by the way!
GODDAMMIT I was going to heal the sick!

Blah blah blah - plucky princess goes back to her real king and queen parents and happy ending etc etc.

Best part of the film - when the kingdom releases the numerous floating lamps and the entire sky lights up - so gorgeous - as the lighting of the lamps travels through the city, it mimics the glowing of Rapunzel's hair. Oooh pretty.

VERDICT: 7/10.

Review of 'X-Men: First Class' - rather first class stuff

I had the good fortune of being invited out to the media preview of this film yesterday in London and as a result, was tres excited, partly because I had a gut feeling that this film, the fourth in the X-Men franchise, would surpass the two predecessors (save, the first one which I rate because it was one of the first super hero movies out there and did a fair job). I didn’t ‘think’ too much about it either, because if it I had I might have wavered knowing that it was directed by Matthew Vaughn – and the jury is still out on Kick Ass and I loathed Stardust so yeh…

**SPOILERS ALERT***

Anyhow, launching into the content. Twas good, twas very good and I can't speak for the die hard fans of the series but this will be winner for mainstream audiences for sure - and once more restore the super hero genre somewhat. The action sequences were brilliant without being thrown in there just for the hell of it, the performances by James McAvoy as Charles Xavier was right on point and even Michael Fassbender was intense, tortured (and witty!) as Eric (save for the blatant Irish accent creeping in at the end of the film but that’s really minor…) Special mention goes to Bill Milner, who plays the young Eric - his scene in the Nazi office - enough said.  

The film doesn’t introduce anything new thematically, as it rotates around the concept of fear and hatred of the new and the misunderstood and questions of what evolution really means – it simply sets up (or rather builds upon, in reverse..?) the two opposing sides that will go on to be represented by Professor X and Magneto. And as most people know, I love going ‘back to the start’ and revealing what makes characters become who they are.   Additionally, the pace carried the film well, considering it was over 2 hours long.  

The film and the cast are all beautiful to watch, with solid performances from all, though its McAvoy, Fassbender and Bacon that do the heavy lifting. The score is intense but in parts I felt like it was doing too much of the work.The script was decent as well and there were only perhaps two lines that were lame in all, so for a super hero movie, that’s pretty damn good going. 

While the mutant characters were engaging enough and felt fully formed, the film painted the rest of humanity as rather dim and grey - I don’t fault the movie for that really, it’s nigh impossible to show the full spectrum of people but those characters supposedly in power – generals and whatnots, just felt like puppets – but I think that was the point. Talk about ineffective humans – especially those in authority (and doesn’t that reflect reality? Ouch!)

There were great moments of levity, mostly through Charles Xavier’s lines but by far the best sequence was when Eric and Charles team up for the first time and begin recruiting – there’s a brilliant inside joke thrown in there that references the original movies – and it had everyone in the cinema laughing.

What’s more, on a more broad note, the film does keep that question hanging for you – what would you do if you were the more evolved version of the human species? It’s a probing enough question but not one that is overbearing to the content or properly explored - which is a wise move, considering all the other movies pick up on that. So you leave feeling you watched a more than decent superhero movie with fair creditability and lots of fun to boot - that surpassed no. 2 and 3 (which isn't hard but if you get stuck in a formula it could go stale and smell bad, like the Star Wars going back to the beginning nonsense. It didn't do that -  it got a new lease of life). Plus, if James McAvoy is in it, there's something of worth there, surely?

VERDICT – 8.5/10

Sci Fi London - Earth 2.0 Initialisation

Yesterday, I went along with Arctic Bunny to Sci Fi London Film Festival at the Apollo Cinema to see the Earth 2.0 Initialisation. For all of you who don;t know what Earth 2.0 is, please visit this site. It's a really fascinating concept that these people are trying to form, and thereby give a platform and mouthpiece to the idea that we need to move into a new sphere of being - that we have to be accountable for our lives here on Earth - upgrade from the broken and self involved Earth 1.0 to the new, symbiotic Earth 2.0. It's currently a multimedia vehicle to drive these issues forward.

*DISCLAIMER* This post is very environmental, Gaia esque. If that doesn't interest you, fair does. If the fate of humanity on Earth does though - go for it! 

I was drawn to this idea because I believe in this fundamental law - that we are part of the Earth, part of the biosphere, not differentiated or disassociated and that science and technology needs to understand this. I am not a scientist at all but the new spheres of science and development into eco-friendly and eco-conscious systems is of great interest to me.

The event started off with an intro talk, then a short film, then a panel talk and discussion (which wasn't nearly long enough). The film had six people speaking about the idea and/or cause that is Earth 2.0. It was a taster, a teaser even and I think a lot of people who were there, were expecting more - I myself, as well. Yet, it was clear to see that this project is very much embryonic - this is the genesis, just the touchstone and the speakers wanted to be open to participation from everyone.

Some of the points raised are worth noting - and my thoughts on them:

1. Earth 1.0 is unsustainable. 'If everyone lived the life of an average American, we would need 5 planets.' This was one of the first quotes in the short film. It really hits home the scale of our impact, our incessant devouring. 'Business as usual cannot go on', was another point made and Dr Rachel Armstrong, one of the speakers there added 'Doing less of what we do now, is not the way to go.'  I completely agree on this point - less traveling in cars, less trips on an airplane is not the solution. What no one likes to admit, particularly the current system of science, is that there are some systems and ways of being that will need to go - go, go. Perusing the planet for that other miracle batch of oil is only going to stave our problem off longer - 'Hey - more oil! We can consume like maniacs for another 50 years!' Routine, rigid minds and thinking are only going to entrap us and keep us in the current form and paradigm, even when our surroundings our urging us to think otherwise.

Tiny Furniture @ Bird's Eye View Film Festival

Last week, I went with my friends and sister to watch 'Tiny  Furniture' at the closing gala to Bird's Eye View Film Festival. It was a good sign when we arrived at the NFT and found that our seats had goody bags with chocolate and a box of Dermalogica products and samples - money's worth right there!

 The event started with the awards for the evening and I remember seeing a clip to 'The Silence beneath the Bark', a short animation that won the award for Best Short Animation which looked stunning, so please check it out.


Lastly, they screened 'Tiny Furniture', a film by Lena Dunham and all shot on a Canon 7D (woo!). It was a very enjoyable film, mostly because it was hilarious. The script was very witty and didn't feel too over done. I felt there was  slight lag in the last third of the film and it didn't really conclude, just left one with that lingering feeling of hope/no-hope, a sort of limbo that hits most of us in our early 20s after we've graduated, so it was a gentle reminder of that stagnant and confusing time. In that way, it doesn't rise or fall in the ending, it just sort of plateaus, which would have been terrible if the content preceding it had been anything less that solid and good. Dunham doesn't need to worry about that though, as the film does carry well, even if it dilutes at the end. Having said that, in the final scene when Aura is with her mother, there is a slight tremor in which you perceive her character is turning on a point, but it's a fleeting ray of light and I love that kind of subtlety because it's a one second image but the feelings invoked around that stay with you. Those tiny snatches are what film is about and you get sneaks of it in this film that is working out how to be a film, as well as blurring the line between auto-biography and fiction (the film is based on Lena's own life and stars her own sister and mother, shot in her home). 



At times, it does feel a little home video like but I think that's the point; it captures the mundane grey of those aimless days when you're still looking for purpose and drive and have come back to your family home but really you've outgrown it, which ties in nicely with the whole 'tiny furniture' Aura's mother photographs. 


Lastly, I'm impressed that the film was conceived in October 2010, shot in November and then delivered by January 2011. It's inspiring and has me thinking that I need to just take my camera and shoot something too. 


I look forward to more of Dunham's work. 


VERDICT: 7/10.

True Grit - a true, honest film

I'm rather late in writing my account of what I thought of this film but I hope I haven't forgotten what my immediate thoughts were on such a strong film.

Once again, I put forward a case for a good film, well told, that doesn't have maddening spectacle as it's centre-piece but is an straight forward story, acted thoroughly impressively and shot beautifully. The sum of all of those simple elements is enough to give you a very worthy film. Yes, it was snubbed somewhat at the Oscars etc but who cares a fig for awards anyhow?

Amazingly, though there are the formidable actors, Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon, in here, the real force behind the film comes from the narrator and character of Mattie Ross played exceptionally well by Hailee Steinfeld. She holds herself brilliantly in every one of her scenes and to make her mark against the other actors around her is a grand feat so all credit goes to her. Jeff Bridges is hilarious and slurs his lines so that they are barely discernible but it all adds to this larger than life character that, in the final moments of the film, proves his 'true grit'.

The film rotates around this deep need for Mattie to avenge her father's death which isn't handled with any real sentimentality or heart wrenching emotion but instead builds up like an inevitable shot out that you know is coming when you watch an old style Western. The film mirrors the dogged eared determination of it's protagonist in that respect and doesn't indulge in any subplot. I found myself rather wrapped up in events though and there were definite moments when I found physical emotional responses bursting forth. Major thumbs up :D

The natural landscape of the story is the only element that keeps it from being a super self contained film and its stunningly shot by the cinematographer, Roger Deakins. The opening shot of the film is a masterpiece, a real painting coming to life in front of you.

I'm not going to say much more, other than this film is one you should make the effort to watch: acted well, shot well, scripted well and told well - what more could you want? The Coen Brothers deliver solidly again. I haven't read the book so cannot comment on how it's been adapted but even as a film standing on its own, its a worthy one.

VERDICT: 8.8/10

Entering a new chapter

This is a week late somewhat and what's more, this kind of post is usually reserved for my other journal where I gush about 'feelings' and 'life's journey' etc etc.

Yet, allow me some space to do this here. I entered a new 'phase' of life, now that I have been a quarter century on this earth. This year is going to be full of intention and then those intentions actually coming into being - or whatever. 

Last week we celebrated this occasion by going to see the Cirque du Soleil (Totem) at The Royal Albert Hall. It was splendid and wonderful, I loved every minute of it. And that was the first time I had been to the Royal Albert Hall. Stunning really. I was determined to dress up and forgo practical attire which meant my feet froze as we walked from the car park to the venue. Then we finished the evening off at a lovely restaurant in Knightsbridge and the manager heard it was our birthday, so brought out a plate of yummy chocolate desserts, all wheat free. I told him I loved him for that :) Then back home to cut the cake at some insane hour but it had to be done. 


This post does actually have something of interest to read about, namely this article I read on Kazuo Ishiguro which was enlightening, even though I haven't read his work really. I tried to get through 'Remains of the Day' when I was preparing for my interview at Oxford but I couldn't get into it. Needless to say (for I hear you asking, where is the relevance here?), he's being interviewed to talk about 'Never Let Me Go' being made into a film yada yada. 

"When I see films made from books, I make a huge effort not to remember the book," he says. "It's important to see the film as a film. Of course, it's easier with an old book. If it's Wuthering Heights or something, it's like going to the theatre and seeing another version; it might as well be Chekhov. This book came out in 2006, so it's harder to do that. But it's a movie. Every discussion shouldn't be dominated by a comparison with the novel."

Cool, what do you think - do you agree? It's a fair point and in all honesty, quite right, though I couldn't wholeheartedly agree, for that would render this blog's primary aim rather useless. I haven't read the book or seen the film, so cannot make a comparison either way. 

Yet there is something to be said about the film adaptation standing on its own two feet. Do you agree? I'm still thinking that there is a ineffable thread, as it were, that will always bind the film to it's original adaptation - can you ever really separate the two?

Furthermore, what's your favourite book to film adaptation and why did it work for you?

Review of 'The King's Speech'

This was a film that was very well done and very solid as a result. I must confess that it is rather heartwarming to know that so many people are thoroughly enjoying watching the film at the cinema, when our screens have been so inundated with 3D movies of little substance and lots of visual tricks.

Well, once again I make my case for good writing acted thoroughly well. That combination is always going to work and when you consider that The King's Speech is such a contained narrative, with no subplot to speak, it can still get you emotively involved, without needing to mimic the motion of a roller-coaster.

Happy families!

The story is a simple one: King George V's son,  'Bertie', played by Colin Firth has a terrible stammer,  rendering him pretty much speechless when it comes to public speaking. The film opens to show him trying to deliver one such speech to Wembley Stadium, which is also being broadcast to the whole of the Empire. The real behind the scenes star is in fact his wife, Duchess of York (who then goes on to become Queen Elizabeth), played by Helen Bonham Carter superbly. She is the one constantly searching for someone who can help her husband and thus lands at Logue's clinic. All the scenes with her were amusing and played effortlessly, unlike Timothy Spall who had a go at doing Winston Churchill - badly. He somehow thought screwing his face up and gruffing up his voice, like some angry badger, would pass. Baffling.

The conflicts themselves aren't complicated on the surface but the film allows the sub-strata stuff to simmer underneath, so that more is said without words or over babbling by anyone. With that in mind, you begin to empathise with Firth's character who is thrust into a role of greatness that he doesn't want but gallantly steps up to, thanks to his brother relinquishing responsibility or care for anyone else. All of it is poetically depicted through the struggle for speech and the stammer representing an 'emotional' blockage thanks to a rather unpleasant childhood and being ridiculed, no doubt. The film is full of poignancy as a result, such as the scene when the new King George returns home, expecting to embrace his daughters, but they in turn curtesy to him, an act of brutal formality but sweet nonetheless.

There were lovely scenes of misty London, though I couldn't help wonder if that was employed so that any signs of modernity were blanketed out. Cinemtography brilliantly enhanced the feeling of stretched out expectations bearing down upon Bertie, with shots that tilted up or down. Sound design was also strong, such as when, in the opening scene, the stammering words from the duke just keep echoing endlessly around the stadium.  

Ultimately, it's a tale of triumph and friendship, with Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush playing off one another wonderfully with a script that is just about right from every angle, without once overdoing it. Warm fuzzies. Also, Colin Firth dons a kilt at one point, what more could you want?

VERDICT: 8/10