Tuesday, March 30, 2010

BBFC Report

There's just not enough material to do this every other week, so the BBFC report will be a monthly feature. Here's this month's.


THE RAILWAY CHILDREN - Contains scenes of characters in danger.

NANNY MCPHEE & THE BIG BANG - Contains no material likely to offend or harm.

DIRTY OIL - Contains no material likely to offend or harm.

THE GREAT FIRE OF PONTYPANDY - FIREMAN SAM - Contains no material likely to offend or harm.

L’ELISIR D’ AMORE - Contains no material likely to offend or harm.

RAINBOW MAGIC - RETURN TO RAINSPELL ISLAND - Contains no material likely to offend or harm.

HUBBLE 3D - Contains no material likely to offend or harm.

LOVE’S LABOUR’S LOST - Contains no material likely to offend or harm.

24 CITY - Contains no material likely to offend or harm.



HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON [2D / 3D] - Contains frequent mild threat.
FLIPPED - Contains mild language.

STREETDANCE [3D] - Contains mild language, sex references and violence.

CLEO DE 5 A 7 - Contains mild language and infrequent natural nudity.

AS YOU LIKE IT - Contains mild language and one scene of moderate bloodshed.

DIARY OF A WIMPY KID - Contains mild language.



WHATEVER WORKS - Contains moderate sex references and suicide references.

THE BOUNTY HUNTER - Contains moderate language, violence and sex references.

REMEMBER ME - Contains infrequent strong language, moderate sex and violence, and smoking.

THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE - Contains moderate violence.

GOOD HAIR - Contains strong language and moderate sex references.

CLASH OF THE TITANS [2D / 3D] - Contains moderate fantasy violence.

IT’S A WONDERFUL AFTERLIFE - Contains comic horror and infrequent soft drug use.

THE BACK UP PLAN - Contains moderate sex, sex references and one use of strong language.

THE BROTHERS BLOOM - Contains strong language, moderate violence, gore and sex references.

PRINCE OF PERSIA: THE SANDS OF TIME - Contains moderate violence.



JOHN RABE - Contains strong bloody war violence and injury detail.

SHANK - Contains strong language, once very strong, strong violence and drug use.

STATEN ISLAND - Contains strong language and strong bloody violence.

BURIED - Contains strong language, once very strong, and sustained threat.

CEMETERY JUNCTION - Contains infrequent very strong language, strong language & sex references.

LEONERA - Contains very strong language and bloody injury detail.

I KNOW YOU KNOW - Contains very strong language.

CHATROOM - Contains suicide theme and strong sex references.

STORM - Contains strong language.

THE JONESES - Contains strong language and nudity.

COK FILIM HAREKETLER BUNLAR - Contains strong language.

IN THE LAND OF THE FREE - Contains strong language.

LATAK - Contains strong language, sex and drug use.

THE CALLING - Contains strong language and implied sex scenes.

HOT TUB TIME MACHINE - Contains strong language, crude sex references and drug use.

FOUR LIONS - Contains strong language and sex references.



THE KILLER INSIDE ME - Contains very strong violence, sadomasochistic sex scenes and child abuse.

MAN SOM HATAR KVINNOR - THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO [Dubbed version] - Contains scenes of sexual violence.

THE HEAVY - Contains very strong language and strong bloody violence.

NIGHTWATCHING - Contains very strong language, strong sex, sex references and nudity.

News

Cannes gets a cool poster for 2010
The line up isn't out yet (I'll have a detailed preview when it is) but here's the poster for this year's Cannes Film Festival. For me, this just bleeds cool.



The festival opens on May 12th, with the world premiere of Ridley Scott's Robin Hood

They Made Tom Watch...



Running time: Too long.

Stars: Will Ferrell, Anna Friel

What’s it about?
Will Ferrell is a ‘quantum archaeologist’ who believes in Time Warps, a sort of Bermuda triangle of intertwined alternate dimensions.

He is ridiculed by his colleagues and almost gives up his dream until a young female admirer picks him up and they test the device. Lo and behold, it works!

They spend the rest of the film wandering around the Land of the Lost looking for the device to get them home and meet various monsters and aliens, are given things to do and do them. They then return home.

Is it any good?
Absolutely not. This is, without doubt, the worst film I’ve seen since working here. Utter and unforgivable dirge. Will Ferrell’s character is so mindlessly and relentlessly stupid that we cannot sympathise with his character, or root for his character at all! This makes the fawning of the attractive and intelligent sidekick (Friel) all the more bizarre and unbelievable.
Throw in the semi-ok special effects (in an effects led film), and you’re left with a film whose climax is the lights coming up and the blessed relief that you can finally leave.
Bizarrely also, the humour is mainly (and disturbingly) sexual, leaving it horrendously inappropriate for its target audience.

Who is it for?
Will Ferrell fans (a synonym for idiots). Tiny children.

What is it like?
Stepping in dog poo.

Good Stuff: It ends.

Bad Stuff: It begins.

Monday, March 29, 2010

From the Archives

SAY ANYTHING…
DIR: Cameron Crowe
CAST: John Cusack, Ione Skye, John Mahoney,
Joan Cusack, Lili Taylor


Boy (Cusack) meets Girl (Skye). Boy and Girl fall in love. Girl gets scholarship to England. Girl's Father (Mahoney) makes her feel guilty about spending time with Boy. Boy loses Girl. Boy plays Peter Gabriel's In Your Eyes outside Girls window. Can he get her back?

"...She gave me a pen. I gave her my heart and she gave me a pen".


Almost all you need to know about this most atypical of teen movies is in that line, the emotion, the offbeat humour and the brilliant, brilliant dialogue come together perfectly in that moment to make it the most memorable line in a film packed with them. It's no surprise that the chief asset of Say Anything is its dialogue as it is the directorial debut of Cameron Crowe. Crowe became a journalist for Rolling Stone at just 15, in his early 20s he returned to high school and wrote the book Fast Times At Ridgemont High before having his first experience with film by writing a screenplay based on that book. 7 years later he produced this, set in the same world but with a totally different tone and style Say Anything is a sign that Cameron Crowe grew up in those 7 years.

Crowe's greatest strength as a writer has always been in creating complex, individual characters and here he does some of his best work in that respect. Lloyd Dobler (Cusack) is a million miles from the stereotypical guy of teen movies (as his friend Corey (Taylor) says to him: "Be a man, don't be a guy"). He is intelligent, thoughtful, funny and seems to have it all worked out. One does wonder where Lloyd might have ended up though since kickboxing proved not to be the sport of the future as he hopes. What defines Lloyd though is his feelings for Diane (Skye) as evidenced by what he says to her father at the end of the film "...Cause I figured out what I really want to do with my life, what I want to do for a living is I want to be with your daughter. I'm good at it". I've heard many girls name Lloyd as an ideal boyfriend and that is a huge achievement on Crowe's part. John Cusack has, to some degree, played Lloyd ever since, there is a lot of the cynical side of the character in his portrayal of Rob Gordon in High Fidelity. He should not complain though, this is an iconic part and he does it full justice with a subtle performance that is still the best of his career almost 14 years on.

Ione Skye matches Cusack at every turn with a charming performance as Crowe's 'golden girl' Diane Court "A brain. Trapped in the body of a game-show hostess" according to Lloyd's friends. Its difficult to talk about either Cusack or Skye giving performances because they are so convincing that rather than thinking what great performances they are giving you simply watch the characters. It is easy to see why Lloyd and Diane are attracted to one another, even leaving aside Skye's classical beauty.

I can't possibly talk about this film and not mention music. One piece in particular, perhaps the best use of music in cinema history. The moment, illustrated on all the posters for the film, when Lloyd stands outside Diane's window, holding a stereo above his head. Peter Gabriel's beautiful song In Your Eyes playing at full volume. That scene tells you everything about how the characters are feeling without spending pages and pages of dialogue to do it.

There isn't a bad performance in the film. Eric Stoltz pops up in a cameo as Valhere (a role he reprised in Jerry Maguire) and puts in an entertaining, if very broad, comic performance. Lili Taylor excels as Lloyd's friend, who has written more than 50 songs about her ex boyfriend, and John Mahoney proves he is as good at drama as his is at comedy (he played Martin on Frasier). Joan Cusack, John's sister, in a stroke of (now endlessly repeated) casting genius plays Lloyd's sister.

It is obvious that this film was made by a debuting director, not that there is anything wrong with how it is shot, just that all the camera does most of the time is capture the action, rather than draw it. In a film like this though Crowe doesn't need flashy camera work and special effects he just needs to get his wonderful script up on screen and does so perfectly well.
This is a brilliant film, ludicrously classified 15 and perfectly suitable for younger people. A perfect first date film (and if your date doesn’t like it… don’t bother with a second).


THE X-FILES: I WANT TO BELIEVE
DIR: Chris Carter
CAST: David Duchovny, Gillian Anderson, Billy Connoly,
Amanda Peet, Xzibit



I’m a sceptic at heart; when people make scientific or supernatural claims I want to see them backed up with evidence rather than take them on faith. In other words I’m a Scully. With this movie though I found myself identifying with Mulder more. I WANT to believe. I want to believe that, after six years, this isn’t really what Chris Carter has come up with for the second X Files movie.

Sadly the evidence suggests otherwise. The main problem with this fundamentally broken movie is that there is no compelling reason for it to be an X Files movie. Mulder (Duchovny) and Scully (Anderson) do little of consequence and neither ever does anything you believe only they would, or could, do. This is a major problem because the entire plot revolves around Mulder (who apparently ended the TV series on the run, under a sentence of death) being invited, through Scully, back to the FBI to help determine whether the information being given by a paedophile priest (Connolly), who claims to be psychic, regarding the disappearance of an FBI agent, can be trusted. Several problems arise from this; first of all are we REALLY supposed to believe that an advanced law enforcement agency like the FBI doesn't have a: people who are trained to determine whether someone is lying, and for what reasons or b: the most advanced lie detecting technology available? Even if we are supposed to believe this, and assuming that we do, Mulder does nothing more than ask the most basic, common sense, questions of Connolly, declare that he’s inclined to believe him (shock) and stroke his messy beard. And for THAT Mulder gets a clean sheet? The X Files wildest conspiracy theories stretched credibility less.

Leaving aside the fact that the film is wildly unbelievable it simply doesn’t work, and that’s all down to the script by Carter and long time X Files writer Frank Spotnitz. To their credit they try to move Mulder and Scully on in their lives, six years have passed off screen and on, but they do it in the most ham fisted and poorly realised of ways, and only end up muddling the characters and their relationship. That relationship is clearly sexual, but there’s no spark between the characters, none of the snappy sparring dialogue that marked the best episodes of the show. The script is also unclear about how Mulder and Scully live, which means that a moment when Scully says she won’t be coming home falls completely flat, because you were never even sure that they lived together (indeed the idea that they would, with Mulder on the run, makes them seem far less intelligent than they are supposed to be).

There are no fleshed out characters here. Billy Connolly’s priest could have been really interesting, but the film never truly delves into the origins of his visions and what they mean and the characters past crimes have little bearing on the plot, a shame because there is plenty of potential there for something truly scary. Instead Carter and Spotnitz content themselves with the thought that they are doing something terribly interesting and groundbreaking merely by not treating this character entirely as a villain. Similarly Amanda Peet and Xzibit are given ciphers to play as the FBI agents who recruit Mulder (why, exactly, is Scully in this movie again?) to the case. Neither ever develops any personality, and neither has a single memorable frame of screen time.

Perhaps worst of all is the terrible sub plot involving Scully’s treatment of a young boy with a terminal brain disease. Not only does it simplify Scully to ludicrous degrees (a supposedly brilliant doctor, preparing to give a presentation on the groundbreaking new treatment she intends to try on her patient researching her case by printing every item that comes up on the google search “stem cell treatment”) but it clearly exists solely to make a political point, but sadly Carter and Spotnitz can’t settle on what that point is.

Amid the awfulness there are a few glimmers of light. The reliably excellent Duchovny and Anderson try their hardest and both give remarkable performances given the shocking dialogue, the terrible characterisation and the overwhelming feeling that the whole endeavour is utterly pointless. Billy Connolly is also better than the film deserves, giving a quietly sad performance as a man who has been trying to apologise to God for half his life.

That’s all the good news though, and the bad news just doesn’t stop coming. At $29 million this is a very cheap movie, particularly for the summer, and it looks it. Sets are drab, lack detail, and feel fake, the cinematography is murky, the few effects are cheap and less than special and the supporting cast seems to have been recruited from TV’s worst guest stars. All in all it adds up to something that feels like a barely developed afterthought rather than the revisiting of a much-loved franchise. The X Files is now dead, and it’s a crying shame that this mess of a movie is its epitaph.

The Week in Movies

22nd – 28th Mar 2010

Piranha / Piranha II: Flying Killers (18)
DIR: Joe Dante / James Cameron

This long dormant franchise is soon due to give birth to a new - 3D - instalment directed by Alexandre Aja, so I thought it would be a good time to check out the first two films.

Joe Dante’s Piranha, with a screenplay by John Sayles, isn’t an especially upmarket or intelligent film. In fact it is silly and exploitative, with some ropey effects and pretty bad acting, but it’s also a great deal of fun. Dante has always been a witty filmmaker and Piranha is a very funny film, with plenty of knowing nods to other movies (of course the whole thing is a Jaws rip off). Because Dante, Sayles and the cast keep their tongues shoved firmly in their cheeks this is a real treat, if you’re in the right mood.

Piranha II is most notable, no, scratch that, ONLY notable, for being the directorial debut of one Mr J. Cameron, who has since made a few movies you might have heard of. Unfortunately, Flying Killers isn’t one of those cheap debuts that exceeds expectations, and reveals a talent in waiting. It’s just shit. The screenplay and direction lack the knowing tone that made the first film such fun and the effects (by Lucio Fulci’s frequent collaborator Gianetto Di Rossi) are, sadly, dreadful. Oh, and the acting is so bad it’s actually rather funny. Both these films are crap, but only the first is fun, entertaining crap.


Not the Messiah: He’s a Very Naughty Boy (PG)
Screened in cinemas for one day only, Eric Idle’s operatic version of The Life of Brian was, frankly, often just a bit odd. There’s little staging, so the visuals tended just to be the singers standing in place and delivering the songs (though they did some acting as well, and I was surprised at how adept and funny they could be), but the more pressing problem was that the laughs too often stopped dead during the songs. The songs are beautifully crafted, clever parodies of both pop and classical styles, but the lyrics just weren’t funny in themselves, so much of the time it’s a three minute wait for the next joke.

There were a few exceptions to that rule, notably an excellent doo wop parody and the very rude Amourdeus. Most of the rest of the jokes were drawn verbatim from the film, and delivered with obvious enjoyment, but the only time I had a real belly laugh during the whole 90 minutes was the first time that Terry Gilliam appeared. A fun curio, but less engaging than it should have been.


Leonera (15)
[Lion’s Den]
DIR: Pablo Trapero

Argentinian actress Martina Gusman is outstanding in this otherwise rather ordinary prison drama. Gusman plays Julia, a young woman imprisoned for the murder of her boyfriend. We never know the story behind the crime, though the film seems to infer that she’s not, or at least not entirely, guilty. When she arrives in prison Julia is pregnant, and she’s allowed to keep her son, Tomas, with her until he is four, and live on a wing with other mothers and their young children.

This is a part of the problem, because I didn’t really buy into Trapero’s depiction of prison, which, for the most part, he seems to suggest is a holiday camp with razorwire. What does play, through Gusman, is Julia’s fierce, almost obsessive, love for her child but outside of that the film plods a little, treading a familiar narrative path (complete with risibly unrealistic ending), and it never completely engaged me.


Air Force One (15)
DIR: Wolfgang Petersen
Harrison Ford as an ass kicking US president, fighting Gary Oldman’s Russian terrorist, on board Air Force One. It’s stupid, overblown and schematically written, but really, what’s not to like? Big, dumb, fun.

Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (PG)
DIR: Eric Radomski / Bruce W. Timm


This acclaimed spin off of the Batman animated series was a real disappointment on this rewatch, some years after I had last seen it. The voice work is excellent, and the character design bold and appealing, but the animation is pretty unimpressive, and lacking in fluidity. On top of that, the story, despite just a 73 minute running time, is actually rather dull and slow moving. The film wins points for the sequences with Mark Hammill’s hilarious Joker, but otherwise I was disappointed this time round.


The Sure Thing (15)
DIR: Rob Reiner

Why doesn’t everyone love The Sure Thing? I mean, really, it’s Rob Reiner’s second film, made between gold standard classics This is Spinal Tap and The Princess Bride. It stars John Cusack, just before Say Anything, and it’s that rare thing; a romantic comedy that is not only funny, but manages to grow the relationship between its two main characters (Cusack and the cute Daphne Zuniga) in a believable way. Essentially, The Sure Thing is a raunchier, 80’s set, remake of It Happened One Night with Cusack’s character not a journalist travelling in pursuit of a story but a college student going to California to be set up by his friend with a dream girl (the titular Sure Thing). The film is consistently hilarious, thanks to the excellent chemistry between Cusack and Zuniga and to their energetic performances. There are also some nice supporting turns, notably from Tim Robbins as “Gary Cooper, but not the Gary Cooper that’s dead”.

If you haven’t seen this terrific, sadly underseen, movie I really would highly recommend that you pick it up and give it a chance.

Sunday, March 28, 2010

My First...

Here's a series designed to get you guys to interact with the site a bit more, get you to comment on a more regular basis.

Each week I'll tell you a little about my first [something movie related], and then ask you to chime in and share stories of your own firsts in the same category. Simple, eh? Anyway, here's a fun topic to get things started.

MY FIRST MOVIE STAR CRUSH
Come on, we've all had them, and usualy they were the catalyst for us noticing the opposite sex (or our own sex, we don't discriminate at 24FPS) to begin with. One minute it's "Girls, yuck" and then it becomes "Girls, awesome". For me, the catalyst was an American actress 10 years my senior, whose career was really taking off at just about the same time my hormones were doing the same. I'm not sure if I'd even seen her in a movie (perhaps Beetlejuice, but she's not really at her finest in that), I think I just saw her picture in a magazine, and then started hunting down her films. Ladies and Gentlemen... Winona Ryder.

Here are a few pictures from the early 90's, to demonstrate why I was such a fan.
Free image hosting powered by PostImage.org Free image hosting powered by PostImage.org Free image hosting powered by PostImage.org Free image hosting powered by PostImage.org
Free image hosting powered by PostImage.org Free image hosting powered by PostImage.org Free image hosting powered by PostImage.org Free image hosting powered by PostImage.org

Even at 11 or 12, I had pretty damn good taste.
I was also a fan of Winona Ryder's acting (still am, point of fact) and I'd love to see her make a proper comeback, she's got the acting chops still, and the looks, but she's not really had the material of late. Even Heathers writer Dan Waters' directorial debut; Sex and Death 101 was something of a damp squib. Anyway, since I'm enjoying this post, and since I've still got a crush on her, here's a few of Noni now (or recently anyway).

Free image hosting powered by PostImage.org Free image hosting powered by PostImage.org Free image hosting powered by PostImage.org

So, how about you? Who was your first movie star crush? How did it come about? Are you still into them, be it as an actor or that you've still got a thing for them? Give us a picture link too if you like.

All pictures were found at www.winona-ryder.org, so many thanks to them.

Next Week

There’s a lot going on in the world of movies, and sometimes sifting through the mass for what to go out and see and what to buy on DVD can be a challenge so here, for the UK and US, are some recommended releases and, when applicable, reissues and festival news. I’ve also included a movie link of the week and a quick summary of what to expect next week at 24FPS.

UK DVD
Free image hosting powered by PostImage.org Free image hosting powered by PostImage.org
Cracks: A strong debut from Jordan (daughter of Ridley) Scott. It’s beautifully shot, pitched halfway between Sofia Coppola’s work and Lucile Hadzihalilovic’s hypnotic Innocence, and boasts fine performances from Eva Green and rising stars Juno Temple and Maria Valverde.

Unmade Beds: I haven’t seen this yet, but anything with the luminous Deborah Francois in it has my attention, and probably ought to have yours too.


US DVD
Free image hosting powered by PostImage.org Free image hosting powered by PostImage.org
An Education: Carey Mulligan’s star making performance is a good reason to see this film, but personally I’m hoping that, on DVD, Rosamund Pike’s wonderful, hilarious, supporting performance will get the notice it deserved.

Sherlock Holmes: Holy shit! It’s a good Guy Ritchie film!


UK THEATRICAL RELEASE
Free image hosting powered by PostImage.org Free image hosting powered by PostImage.org
Kick Ass: As previously discussed, this brilliantly anarchic superhero movie is, improbably, even better than you’ve heard. And Hit Girl is the single most entertaining thing you’ll see in a cinema this year. SEE IT NOW.

Psycho: A Classic in Context [Week 1]
The start of a month long season at BFI Southbank, pairing a remastered digital print of Psycho with films that anticipated it, influenced it and have drawn on its legacy. This week the season includes Les Diaboliques, M, Peeping Tom, and Repulsion, among others.


LINK OF THE WEEK
Indie Movies Online
Clicking the link will take you to an 8 page list of free movies that you can watch, completely legally, online. The streams are excellent, with no buffering time required and a ‘low quality’ version which offers near DVD quality visuals. What really makes the site though is the selection of films, here are just a few titles (of the very few that I’ve already seen) I’d recommend.

Free image hosting powered by PostImage.org
The Cement Garden: Based on an Ian McEwan novel, and with a brilliant performance by a young Charlotte Gainsbourg

The Stepfather: A still rather underseen and underrated classic of 80’s horror.

Frostbite: A highly entertaining Swedish vampire movie, well worth discovering now that Sweden, since Let the Right One In and The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, is being noticed again as a centre of filmmaking.

The Last Great Wilderness: A very odd debut from Scottish director David MacKenzie. Listed here as a comedy, it put me more in mind of The Wicker Man.


NEXT WEEK @ 24FPS
Free image hosting powered by PostImage.org
Reviews of, among others, The Scouting Book For Boys and XXY director Lucia Puenzo’s new film The Fish Child. The BBFC Report, along with more reviews From the Archives and new instalments of Five… and Spotlight.

Saturday, March 27, 2010

Film Reviews: Lourdes / Kick Ass

LOURDES
DIR: Jessica Hausner
CAST: Sylvie Testud, Léa Seydoux,
Bruno Todeschini, Elina Löwensohn



When a film deals with religion and (possible) miracles it is important to see where the film is coming from in relation to that concept and those events. Lourdes is perhaps best described as an agnostic film. Jessica Hausner and her cast may know the truth of what happens when Sylvie Testud’s wheelchair bound MS sufferer Christine is, on a visit to the titular site of pilgrimage, apparently miraculously able to walk again but, crucially, they aren’t telling. That’s part of what makes Lourdes so compelling, rather than taking the easy route and battering us over the collective head with either religious or atheistic fervour it simply (very simply, in fact) tell this story, and leaves us with the ambiguity of it, free to think whatever we like.

There are a few problems with Lourdes, mostly the fact that the way the screenplay deals with its characters is sometimes a little schematic (especially in reference to the two old ladies who form a sort of greek chorus, and disapprove when the much less outwardly devout Christine receives a miracle, rather than anyone else), but for the most part the film’s focus is tightly on Christine, and Sylvie Testud’s spectacular performance, and when she dominates the film it is just about perfect.

Testud is an exceptional actress, the kind of character actor who seems almost to shape shift from role to role. She’s perfectly cast as Christine, largely because rather than going for the sometimes ludicrous glamour that Hollywood actresses often portray, Testud looks like a real person rather than a model in a wheelchair. This film isn’t a character study, and actually the writing of Christine is a little thin, which means that Testud has to play a lot in undertones; a glance here, a flicker of emotion on her face there. She’s severely limited, during the film’s first two acts, by the fact that Christine can only move her head. Despite these limitations, Testud finds oceans of depth in Christine, giving an extremely moving performance, while actually doing very little. Some of her smallest moments are her best; the tiny smile when she’s able, unnoticed by her nurse (Seydoux), to reach out and touch a wall at Lourdes; the effort she puts into a spin while dancing with one of the male helpers (Todeschini); the long beat, the day after the ‘miracle’ when it seems that she may not move, and the moment that she appears to remember that she can. It’s exceptional work from a great actress.

Jessica Hausner’s directorial style is meticulous, and heavily designed, but that design never feels suffocating, rather it presents the story with beautiful simplicity. Most of Hausner’s shots are still frames, often held for quite a long time, it’s a nice touch, a clever way to get us to soak up the atmosphere of Lourdes, which seems, from this film, an odd combination of church and gift shop and to experience it in much the same way that Christine does; still, with a perspective that shifts infrequently, and only through outside intervention. The imagery is often extremely beautiful, and Hausner seems to have an innate sense when it comes to shot selection. Especially strong is the one kiss that Christine has with the male helper she’s got a crush on. Most movies, certainly most Hollywood movies, would rush in for a close up, have music swell on the soundtrack, and quite possibly roll the credits. Hausner observes the moment in long shot, without music, and just lets the force of the moment speak for itself, an intelligent and mature choice from a director on only her third feature.


The supporting cast are sometimes slightly shortchanged by the screenplay, but in the most pivotal roles Léa Seydoux, Bruno Todeschini and Elina Löwensohn are all excellent. Seydoux, in particular, impresses as the young girl who is helping out on this trip rather than going skiing, but is finding it both less fun and less fulfilling than she hoped, and, like Christine, she’s distracted by Todeschini.

What really makes Lourdes special though is that it’s an example of an increasingly rare thing in cinema; a genuinely thoughtful film. Despite the U certificate this is very much a film for adults, because it demands your engagement, it provokes thought about whether what Christine has experienced is a miracle, a simple remission in her MS, or if, spurred on by her interest in the male helper, there has been a psychological effect that has caused this remission. It digs in to complex issues like the motivation of pilgrims and those who accompany them on their pilgrimages and it wraps it all in a beautifully told, if low key, story with an ending that is both hugely emotional and deliberately ambiguous and quiet. Lourdes is a great film, the first great film of 2010 and it’s one that you should make sure to seek out.


KICK ASS
DIR: Matthew Vaughn
CAST: Aaron Johnson, Chloe Grace Moretz, Nicolas Cage,
Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Mark Strong



Whenever a film is as hyped, and has such stellar advance word as Kick Ass has amassed since debuting footage of Hit Girl at Comiccon last year, I end up going into it a little bit pessimistic, because my hopes have so frequently been dashed in the past. I was hoping that Kick Ass would manage to be half as good as it was supposed to be (which would still have made it pretty awesomely entertaining). Well, sadly, it’s not half as good as you’ve heard.

Incredibly, it’s better than you’ve heard. Had you going there, didn’t I? This is a truly spectacular movie, almost its every frame is honed to perfection, its one and only aim to allow you to have an exceptionally entertaining time. It’s so good that it leaves you baffled, both at how everything managed to fall together so well, and at how frequently films intended as mass entertainment (The Bounty Hunter, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen et al) manage to be less fun than watching a cat cough up a hairball because, and this is one of the great joys of Kick Ass, Matthew Vaughn makes this shit look easy.

As much as it is anything else, Kick Ass is the experience of watching a filmmaker come of age. Vaughn started out as Guy Ritchie’s producer, but his first two stints in the big chair showed him to be a more creative filmmaker than Ritchie could ever aspire to be. Layer Cake was Ritchie with more wit, Stardust clunked on occasion (Robert DeNiro’s gay pirate anyone?) but was overall a charming and amusing story, even if the Princess Bride influence weighed rather heavily on the film, but Kick Ass is something else. Vaughn cuts loose, employing a bold visual style entirely appropriate to a comic book adaptation and going as over the top as he can, finding new things to do with each action scene and constantly outdoing himself after you think, ‘well, that can’t be topped’. It is, despite the darkness inherent in many of the story beats, a genuinely joyous film to watch. It’s confident, muscular, inventive filmmaking and while it uses the familiar tropes of the superhero film it never feels bound or hamstrung by them.

The story, based (though I can’t tell you how closely) on Mark Millar and John Romita, Jr's comic book is both simple and convoluted. At its heart the film is about Dave Lizewski (Johnson), a comic reading nerd who wonders why nobody has ever tried being a superhero for real, he decides to try it, and becomes Kick Ass. Even after he’s rendered largely unable to feel pain, and has a lot of metal put into his body to replace the bones broken when he’s hit by a car Dave is a pretty ineffective hero, but he becomes a cult figure on the net, which brings him to the attention of gangster Frank D’Amico (Strong) and father and daughter heroes Big Daddy (Cage) and Hit Girl (Moretz).

Aaron Johnson, whose John Lennon I wasn’t all that convinced by in Nowhere Boy, is effective as Dave and as Kick Ass, the film is patterned, to a large degree, after Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man, and Johnson does a good job of selling the nerdy kid (who is pretending to be gay, just to get close to the girl he fancies) but what this film never forgets is that it’s about a truly identifiable superhero. Spider-Man was great because he seemed like the superhero you could be. Kick Ass is the superhero you would be, and Johnson makes that identification strong.

Mark Strong has become Hollywood’s go to bad guy of late, and he again demonstrates why with a charismatic turn as mob boss Frank D’Amico. In keeping with the film’s dedication for showing characters in a more realistic way than we’d expect in a superhero movie it’s clear that D’Amico largely hides behind his hired goons because, despite an ability to fight, he’s fundamentally a coward. It’s an interesting move for the film, and one that Strong pulls off well. I can’t say much about Christopher Mintz-Plasse as D’Amico’s son, who later becomes superhero Red Mist, but he does demonstrate that there’s more to him than McLovin’, and I’m looking forward to seeing him in the sequel.


Good as these leads are, entertaining as the support is, and though the movie is called Kick Ass, this film is completely owned by Nicolas Cage as Big Daddy and the astounding Chloe Grace Moretz as Hit Girl. Kick Ass has its weaknesses, for instance the pace slackens a bit when Dave is just being Dave, but whenever Cage or Moretz are on screen you can forgive the rest of the film a multitude of sins. Hell, if the rest of the film were Troll 2 I’d probably be able to forgive it, such is the unfettered awesomeness of these characters. Cage is an actor who has no middle gear. He is either catastrophically awful, or he’s jaw droppingly brilliant. His performance as Damon, Big Daddy’s ex-cop alter ego, is largely straight, though there’s an insane glint in his eye too (well, obviously, in his first scene he’s shooting the eleven year old daughter he dotes on in the chest as a training exercise) and he forges a palpable, and perversely rather sweet, bond with Moretz in those scenes, but it’s as Big Daddy that Cage really has fun. In costume, Damon channels Adam West’s Batman. It could have gone either way, but the movie is so consciously a comedy that the deliriously over the top style of Cage’s performance fits brilliantly, and is constantly hilarious.

Hit Girl, oh, what can I say about Hit Girl? This for starters: The movie knows exactly what it’s got in both Hit Girl and Moretz’ exceptional performance. Right from the word go Moretz, as Hit Girl’s alter ego Mindy, is great, as in the scene you’ve all seen in the trailers, where she’s talking about what she wants for her birthday, and after asking for a dog, says: “I'm just fucking with you Daddy... I'd love a bench made model 42 butterfly knife!” But it’s the first time we see her in costume, and her first line as Hit Girl, that really kicks Kick Ass into overdrive. The minute this tiny, pixieish, eleven year old says: “Okay you cunts... lets see what you can do now!” she’s an icon, a character we’ll be talking about for years to come. Moretz completely sells Hit Girl as daddy’s little girl and as perhaps the deadliest thing in this movie, in an irresistible, perfectly judged, performance that is going to make her a huge star. If there’s any way to make Kick Ass an even better movie it would be to shift focus and make Kick Ass the support and Hit Girl and Big Daddy the stars.

The action, which is largely just (wire assisted) martial arts, is enormously fun. Amazingly, Moretz visibly does the bulk of her own stunt work, and does it fantastically well. The great thing about the action here is that it manages to straggle the difficult boundary between being cartoonish and fun when it needs to be (as when Hit Girl takes on a corridor full of D’Amico’s henchmen) and yet hard hitting and distressing when that’s the order of the day (as in the sequence in which a captured Kick Ass and Big Daddy take a savage beating), all without unbalancing the tone of the movie. It’s great to see a superhero movie that keeps things up close, personal and real. CG is very thin on the ground, and certainly there’s none of that horrible, weightless, replacing of characters with digital doubles during the action.

So, to sum up. Wow. I really didn’t think that this film could possibly live up to the hype, but it’s exceeded it. Kick Ass is, put plainly and simply, one of the most out and out entertaining movies of the past several years. It’s perhaps the best comic book movie ever made and is absolutely guaranteed to thrill and entertain all sorts of audiences. It’s spectacular, and I can’t wait to see it again.

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Cinematters: An open letter to Kevin Smith


Dear Kevin,
First off, let me tell you where I’m coming from. I want to make it absolutely clear that I’ve got no inherent problem with you, or with your movies. Point of fact, until recently I felt that you were one of the few filmmakers who was demonstrably growing as an artist with each new film and I’ve enjoyed much of your work, especially Chasing Amy, the sorely underrated Jersey Girl, and Clerks II. I’m even more of a fan of your work outside of the movies; your Q and A sessions, for instance, are as funny and entertaining as some of the best stand up I’ve ever seen. So, hopefully it’s clear that what I’m about to say isn’t coming from any sort of animosity towards you or your movies.

Kevin, since the first reviews of Cop Out came out you have been behaving like a whiny child ‘Mummy, mummy, the critics are being mean, I don’t want them to come and play anymore’. Okay, perhaps I’m being a touch unfair, so why don’t I let your words do the talking. The good folks over at Movieline, with some help from Devin at Chud, managed to stitch your anti-critic twitter meltdown of yesterday together into a coherent, chronological form. I’ve made a couple of edits, just to remove some characters that are neither letters nor punctuation, and to add spaces where needed, all so that it’s that bit easier to read. The words are all yours though.

Sometimes, it’s important to turn off the chatter. Film fandom’s become a nasty bloodsport where cartoonishly rooting for failure gets the hit count up on the ol’ brand-new blog. And if a schmuck like me pays you some attention, score! MORE EYES, MEANS MORE ADVERT [DOLLARS]. But when you pull your eye away from the microscope, you can see that shit you’re studying so closely is, in reality, tiny as fuck. You wanna enjoy movies again? Stop reading about them & just go to the movies. It’s improved film/movie appreciation immensely for me. Seriously: so many critics lined-up to pull a sad & embarrassing train on Cop Out like it was Jennifer Jason Leigh in LAST EXIT TO BROOKLYN. Watching them beat the shit out of it was sad.

Like, it’s called Cop Out; that sound like a very ambitious title to you? You REALLY wanna shit in the mouth of a flick that so OBVIOUSLY strived for nothing more than laughs. Was it called “Schindler’s Cop Out”? Writing a nasty review for Cop Out is akin to bullying a retarded kid who was getting a couple chuckles from the normies by singing AFTERNOON DELIGHT. Suddenly, bully-dudes are doing the bad impression of him, using the “retart” voice. The crowd shifts uncomfortably. And you may impress a couple of low IQ-ers who’re like “Yeah, man! Way to destroy that singing retart!” But, really? All you’ve done is make fun of something that wasn’t doing you any harm and wanted only to give some cats some fun laughs. Yes I compared My Flick To A Retarded Kid

It was just ridiculous to watch. That was it for me. Realized whole system’s upside down: so we let a bunch of people see it for free & they shit all over it? Meanwhile, people who’d REALLY like to see the flick for free are made to pay? Bullshit: from now on, any flick I’m ever involved with, I conduct critics screenings thusly: you wanna see it early to review it? Fine: pay like you would if you saw it next week. Like, why am I giving an arbitrary 500 people power over what I do at all, let alone for free? Next flick, I’d rather pick 500 randoms from Twitter feed & let THEM see it for free in advance, then post THEIR opinions, good AND bad. Same difference. Why’s their opinion more valid? It’s a backwards system. People are free to talk shit about ANY of my flicks, so long as they paid to see it. Fuck this Animal Farm bullshit.

You know what I hear there Kev? ‘Waaaaaahhhhh’. What strikes me first is how childish this rant makes you seem. Children have friendships that change on a day to day basis ‘Timmy won’t let me use the bike, and it’s MY TURN. I hate him now’. You appear to have a similar relationship with critics. When Amy Taubin said lots of nice things about Clerks you couldn’t thank her enough, even on the Clerks X DVD she appears in the documentary and gets numerous fawning namechecks elsewhere (by the way, will she still be allowed to see your movies for free?) and you’ve even attributed importance to more negative reviews, reproducing Matt Zoller Seitz’ thoughtful but middling review of Mallrats in the introduction to the published screenplays of Clerks and Chasing Amy, and crediting that review with helping get you to write Amy. It seems that you used to think reviews, even negative ones, were useful, so what’s changed?

Since that covers only a very few of my problems with this little explosion, let’s now take it point by point, shall we?

Sometimes, it’s important to turn off the chatter.

Oh, the irony.

Film fandom’s become a nasty bloodsport where cartoonishly rooting for failure gets the hit count up on the ol’ brand-new blog. And if a schmuck like me pays you some attention, score! MORE EYES, MEANS MORE ADVERT [DOLLARS].

Well, I can’t speak for the movie blogosphere as a whole, but personally, as a blogger, as a critic and as a regular moviegoer (yep, I’m all three) I want ALL movies to be great. Why the hell would I ever want a movie to be crap? Of course you may mean (it’s a touch unclear) that we bloggers are rooting for movies like Cop Out to fail financially. There the charge is fairer. Thing is, it’s not a personal thing at all. I want bad movies to flop. I don’t care if it’s Uwe Boll’s latest excretion, Avatar, The Bounty Hunter or indeed Cop Out. Bad movies should tank at the box office, if only because if they do it might force people into putting a bit more effort into their product, and thus result in better movies. Make a good movie and I’ll shout it from the rooftops and do all I can to encourage people to see it. That seems like a fair deal to me.

Again, I can’t speak for all bloggers, but I don’t have adverts, so I quite honestly don’t give two fucks how much attention you or anyone else in the industry pays me (though I know I have some readers, who like the site a great deal, who are also filmmakers). I don’t do this for money, I do it because I love movies, something I often think is true of more critics than it is filmmakers, given the state of mainstream cinema.

You wanna enjoy movies again? Stop reading about them & just go to the movies.

I do both, is that okay? I read blogs (Supermarcey is highly recommended, in particular), websites and books about movies on a pretty much daily basis. I also see movies of all kinds, I pursue them with a voracious an ever increasing appetite. Last year I saw 379 movies I had never previously seen and 157 [different] films at the cinema. Is that enough going to the movies to have a valid opinion?

Seriously: so many critics lined-up to pull a sad & embarrassing train on Cop Out like it was Jennifer Jason Leigh in LAST EXIT TO BROOKLYN. Watching them beat the shit out of it was sad.

Boo. Fucking. Hoo. Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe, if everyone’s saying it’s shit… it might be shit? And here’s where I tell you what I thought. I couldn’t sit through the fucking thing. Yep. That bad. I tried Kev, I really did, and I wanted to sit through it so that could write a review, but I gave up for two reasons. First off, 46 minutes in I hadn’t laughed ONCE. I’d cracked a smile maybe twice, so, okay, that’s not quite The Hottie and the Nottie levels of not funny, but it’s not far off either. Realising that I still had just under an hour to go I made two determinations
1: Even if you had literally edited in the last hour of Ghostbusters it couldn’t have made up for the sheer weight of not funny that had gone before.
2: My life may not be perfect, but I definitely had better things to spend an hour on than the last hour of Cop Out, hell, I wondered if going outside and being run over by a bus might be funnier.
Also, comparing your reviews to one of the most disturbing rape scenes ever filmed? Not funny Kev.

Like, it’s called Cop Out; that sound like a very ambitious title to you?

This is like saying to your English teacher 'This F you gave me isn’t fair, because I wasn’t trying'. Perhaps, and it’s just a thought, you should try having some fucking ambition next time.

Writing a nasty review for Cop Out is akin to bullying a retarded kid who was getting a couple chuckles from the normies by singing AFTERNOON DELIGHT.

No it isn’t. Mocking Uwe Boll is mocking the retarded kid, because he’s never demonstrated that he’s got the smallest amount of talent. Giving Cop Out (or at least the first 46 minutes of it) a bad review is calling you out. You have made good films; you are a demonstrably intelligent, funny and articulate man. That’s why people are disappointed that you’ve made this load of boring, unfunny, shit. It’s also because, with this ‘oh poor, misunderstood, assaulted, me’ crap you actually appear to be proud of Cop Out which, frankly, does mark you as the retarded kid.

All you’ve done is make fun of something that wasn’t doing you any harm and wanted only to give some cats some fun laughs. Yes I compared My Flick To A Retarded Kid.

Wasn’t doing you any harm”. Fair enough, Cop Out did me no harm, but the 46 minutes of it that I sat through did me no good either. The only difference in me after it was that I was 46 minutes older, and perhaps a little more cynical about mainstream Hollywood cinema. Again, the problem that people have isn’t that you’re just aiming to make people laugh, that’s all you’ve ever done and God bless you for it, the problem is that you are FAILING. I could lie to you, I could say that I watched all of Cop Out and that I rolled around on the floor, laughing uncontrollably and that afterwards I had to call an ambulance to provide me with oxygen. But that’s bullshit. I don’t care if it hurts your oh so delicate feelings, I didn’t laugh, nor did a lot of other people. Would dishonesty profit you more? Oh it might buff your ego, but would it do anything more than that? Make something good and people will tell you it’s good.
"Yes I compared My Flick To A Retarded Kid". How edgy of you. Of course all that demonstrates is the level at which you are now pitching your ‘comedy’, when frankly you started out so much more intelligent.


from now on, any flick I’m ever involved with, I conduct critics screenings thusly: you wanna see it early to review it? Fine: pay like you would if you saw it next week.

On behalf of all critics: Fuck you. Film critics do a job. Now, you may think it’s a cushy job, or an unnecessary one (well, if they don’t like your movie) but it’s still a job. People get paid to do their jobs; they don’t pay for the privilege of doing them, that’s how jobs work. Perhaps we should make McDonalds workers pay for the privilege of standing behind that counter. Hell, you’ve got a cushy job that pays well and, it could be argued, is essentially unnecessary; perhaps you should pay for the privilege of directing movies. Criticism is in a precarious enough place. Many critics are losing their jobs at the moment, and those who aren’t, I’m willing to bet that most of them aren’t exactly rolling in cash, and very few are as rich as you. If you go through with this new model the upshot will almost certainly be that Red State will get very few reviews, and the attendant publicity that goes with reviews will melt away. Good luck at the box office in that situation. But honestly, this is the stupidest and most petulant part of your whole stupid and petulant argument. ‘waaahhhh, I got bad reviews, so I’m going to INVERT THE FUCKING ECONOMY’.

I’d rather pick 500 randoms from Twitter feed & let THEM see it for free in advance, then post THEIR opinions, good AND bad. Same difference. Why’s their opinion more valid?

Hey, I’m not a professional critic, certainly I don’t get paid, but I like to think that I’m more than a little more educated on movies than some random person on Twitter. That’s what you get with a critic, and that’s why people read them, for an educated opinion. Have you read most message board and blog criticism? 'OMG, dat wuz awesome. Sooo many LOLZ'. And that’s the level of discourse you want about your flicks? Jesus, fuck. OF COURSE Roger Ebert’s or Rex Reed’s opinion, good or bad, paid for or free, is more valid than that, and if you can’t see that then frankly you are both blind and stupid. These people have spent decades learning about and appreciating cinema, their opinion is inherently more meaningful than that of a 15 year old who likes 300cuz it was wicked’. And frankly, you used to think so too, when they liked your films. Odd that.

People are free to talk shit about ANY of my flicks, so long as they paid to see it.

You’re once, twice, two times a hypocrite. So, lets get this right. Critics should have to pay in order to do their job, which is essentially evaluating your job. However, not only should you be paid an exorbitant amount of money to do your job but you are allowed to evaluate (and piss and moan about) the job THEY have done completely free of charge.

Despite the fact that this little rant of yours has really pissed me off, I’m still looking forward to Red State. It will be interesting to see what you can do with a horror film, and good to see you back to writing and directing (because that director for hire thing… fucking disaster, sir). Anyway, if you’d like to respond to any of these points then I would be pleased to hear from you at sam@24fps.org.uk and I will certainly post anything that you write back to me, unedited.

Yours truly
Sam Inglis

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

They Made Tom Watch... 11



What’s it about?
Miss Fritton and her girls at St Trinians are back once again this time on a mysterious adventure in the search for Fritton’s gold.
David Tennant aka Dr Who aka Barty Crouch Jr. plays the baddie in this off beat school comedy. He tries to stop those mis matched, down right naughty little school girls who should all see me for detention! Oops, lost myself then…. Yeah that’s about it really.


What did I think of it?
It’s silly, sillier than the first one. So that makes this shit. For starters and I will warn you as I am about to spoil the end. Apparently Fritton’s gold is a book written by William Shakespeare who in fact was actually a woman?! Need I say more? This film is absolutely shocking. Colin Firth should never be allowed to act again, along with David Tennant, Although I am pretty sure this is the only work Rupert Everett can get now so that’s fine. Just admire all the sexy schoolgirls especially Gemma Arterton. Wow I wish she went to my school.


Who is it for?
Adolescent boys and children, although the thought of them in the same place is kind of wrong.


What is it like?
St Trinians meets Grange Hill.


Good Stuff: The Dads can enjoy the schoolgirls when they take their children to watch it.


Bad Stuff: THE FIRST 105 MINUTES OF THE FILM (except the schoolgirls).

Monday, March 22, 2010

Two Weeks in Movies

8th - 21st Mar 2010

It’s been an odd couple of weeks. I dropped this article last week because, aside from the three films I saw at the cinema, I had only seen another two films in those seven days. This past week I spent a lot of time at cinemas, so much so that several cinema releases will be covered here rather than in full reviews. All, hopefully, will return to normal next week.


Maximum Jail
DIR: Jonathan Stack


Jonathan Stack revisits Angola prison in Louisiana, ten years after making a film about six prisoners serving long, or even life, terms. Two are dead, one of AIDS, the other of a lethal injection. Two have been released; one paroled, one pardoned, and are thriving, using their freedom to preach and attempt to turn young people away from a path that might lead to Angola. Two remain incarcerated. Of these the most intriguing story is that of Vincent Simmonds, serving 100 years for a double rape, which he maintains that he did not commit, despite the fact that saying he had would place him, perhaps, on the road to eventual parole. The scene that shows his parole hearing, and the spectacularly short and dismissive consideration that his case is given, is the film’s most troubling, and most enduring.

Stack paints a rosy picture of Angola under warden Burl Cain; it seems almost more like a hermetically sealed religious retreat than a prison, and you have to wonder how full a picture this is. That said. Jonathan Stack weaves an intriguing and compelling tapestry here; you wish he’d spend a little more time on Simmons, the details of whose arrest are pretty shocking, as he’s easily the most compelling character in the film, but this is an intelligent and engaging film that does much to shatter stereotypical views of prison and prisoners.


The Wrong Man [‘56] (PG)
DIR: Alfred Hitchcock


The title of this Hitchcock could just as easily belong to any number of his other films, and while this one, stacked up against the rest of his work from the 40’s and 50’s, seems like a minor entry in the canon, it remains a cracking thriller. Henry Fonda radiates simple decency as the man misidentified as a bank robber, while Hitch’s then favourite Sylvia Miles is excellent as the wife driven mad by his predicament. Hitchcock is on typically fluent form behind the camera, adopting a slightly grittier, less designed style than usual, and using many of the real locations in which this true story took place. It’s not one of the Master’s masterpieces, but it’s still highly recommended.


Bonnie and Clyde (18)
DIR: Arthur Penn


They’re young, they’re in love, and they kill people”. Bonnie and Clyde may have the single best tagline ever written, but both that line and the film it promotes fail to tell the full story. Arthur Penn’s movie is a great success on its own terms, even 42 years later the frankness and casualness of the film’s violence is shocking and the fast moving script and capable, perversely likable, performances make for a highly engaging and exciting movie, as mythmaking it’s fantastic.

However, when it comes to telling the story of these famous criminals, the whitewashing is a real shame. Obviously it would be impossible to include all their exploits, but in making Bonnie and Clyde into glamorous outlaw antiheroes the film misses the more dramatic and more interesting truth. All in all, the film does what it sets out to do brilliantly, but I can’t help thinking there’s a much more interesting film to be made by sticking closer to the truth.


Apan (18)
[The Ape]
DIR: Jesper Ganslandt


This minimalist thriller from Sweden seems, once again, to confirm that their film industry is in rude health. Jesper Ganslandt’s film opens with a man in his late 30’s (Olle Sarri) waking, covered in blood, in what seems to be an unfamiliar room, and then, following him over roughly the next 36 hours, proceeds to fill us in on why he woke up that way and his attempts to deal with the situation he finds himself in.

Sarri is brilliant (helped, apparently, by the fact that Ganslandt never let him see a script or speak to the crew, ensuring that he was as alienated and surprised by events as his character), and this doom laden film seems to lead both him and us ever further into a very recognisable hell. The Ape doesn’t deal in explicit violence, but it does boast several moments that hit with the force of a punch to the gut, largely because they feel so very, disturbingly, real. If you appreciated Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer then The Ape, with all its faults (it certainly can feel a little languorous in its first forty minutes, and ends with a moment that will have you screaming ‘is that IT?’) is well worth the brief eighty minutes of your time that it asks for, and it certainly marks Jesper Ganslandt as a talent to watch.


I Love You, Phillip Morris (15)
DIR: Glenn Ficarra / John Requa


The first directorial effort from the writers of Bad Santa isn’t quite so in your face as you might expect, nor is it packed with bad taste humour (though it's subject matter will certainly offend some small-minded folk). In fact, at the heart of this very funny true story (an opening caption assures us “This really happened. It really did.”) is a surprisingly genuine, and actually strangely touching, love story between two men.

The titular Phillip is played by Ewan McGregor, and he meets Carrey’s Steven Russell, whose life has taken him from being a married cop to a flamboyantly gay con man, in prison. While there the two fall in love, and on his release Russell turns to ever more outlandish cons, first to free Phillip and then to keep them both in a lavish lifestyle, however, it all comes undone when Steven is, once again, caught and sent to prison.

Both Carrey and McGregor are better here than they’ve been in a very long time. Carrey is laugh out loud funny as the energetic and imaginative Russell, but also manages to give a convincing dramatic performance, and really makes us believe in his love for Morris. McGregor has a much less showy part, but he plays it beautifully, making Phillip fey and effeminate without just playing a stereotype. There’s also nice work in the supporting cast, especially from Leslie Mann, who has never been better than she is here, as Russell’s estranged, but still caring, wife.

It would be a crime to divulge the twists and turns of the plot, other than to say that if they weren’t true you’d never believe them. This is a smart, funny and also rather heartwarming film, and a rare American mainstream comedy that focuses on gay characters without ever resorting to ridiculing them.


L’affaire Farewell (15)
[Farewell]
DIR: Christian Carion


Christian Carion’s telling of the (at least largely) true story of a Russian spy, handled by the French and codenamed Farewell (played by director Emir Kusturica) plays like a 70’s espionage thriller. Deliberately paced, and played mostly through conversational scenes rather than action, it nevertheless grips from beginning to end.

As the high ranking spy, Kusturica is excellent, giving a slightly melancholy performance as a man hoping that by risking his life he’ll help make a better world for his son, while as his young, inexperienced handler Guillaume Canet (also, incidentally, a director) is decent and harried in appropriately equal measure. These two actors dominate the film, but there are valuable, if small, contributions from the rest of an international cast.

Alexandra Maria Lara has a thin role as Canet’s concerned wife, but she brings life to it, much the same is true of Kusturica’s mistress, played by the brilliant Dina Korzun and Willem Dafoe as Canet’s eventual CIA contact. The supporting player who sometimes threatens to steal the film though is Ingeborga Dapkunaite as Kusturica’s wife. She’s just wonderfully real in every one of the too few moments she’s on screen. The only disappointing performance comes from Fred Ward, as a hammy Ronald Reagan.

What’s especially nice, in this day and age, about L’affaire Farewell is that it proves that you don’t have to tear a page out of the Bourne playbook to make a riveting spy movie.


24 Hour Party People (18)
DIR: Michael Winterbottom


A cast of Britain’s best character actors, led by a brilliant Steve Coogan as Factory Records boss Tony Wilson, bring the Madchester music scene of the 80’s and early 90’s to vivid life in this legend printing film from the prolific Michael Winterbottom. It’s not an especially dep explorattio of either the music or the times, more a brilliantly fun scrapbook of half remembered, half invented incidents that are more interesting than the actual truth. The performances are fantastic (special notice to Andy Serkis, Paddy Considine and Shirley Henderson, as well as Coogan) and Frank Cottrell Boyce’s script is sharp, funny, and a little bitter. Oh, and the music’s great.


Christmas in July / The Great McGinty (U)
DIR: Preston Sturges
I’ve put the two of these together because, as well as their being by the same writer/director I really have just about the exact same things to say about both of them. There’s a lot of good stuff here; a strong premise (Man goes on a spending spree, thinking he’s won $25,000, only to discover later that the prize was given by mistake [Christmas in July]. Corrupt politician is undone by his first honest act [The Great McGinty]), good performances, sharp writing and sure handed direction. That said, both of these early efforts from Preston Sturges (who later made the brilliant The Lady Eve and Sullivan’s Travels) are both rather middle of the road efforts. They’ve got a good amount of chuckles, and neither is ever boring, but neither ever really soars either. Pretty average efforts from a director who made at least a couple of great films.


The Children (15)
DIR: Tom Shankland


Shankland’s entry in the cycle of paedophobic horror that has been coming out of Britain is neither the strongest, nor the weakest of its kind, and it’s certainly head and shoulders above his awful previous film W∆Z. There are some genuinely effective moments in this story about an extended family taking a new years holiday when their children all fall ill, and then begin to attack the adults. Though most of the violence is cleverly cut to play only very briefly on screen, Shankland does still manage to make a lot of it seem very painful (see Eva Birthistle’s leg break. Ouch.)

This is also an impressively transgressive film. Even the nastiest of horror films usually shrinks from violence being meted out to children, not this one, there are a couple of really nasty, and shockingly explicit, moments of violence once the children turn into infected killing machines.

On the downside, the performances aren’t great, with Rachel Shelley’s hammy wailing especially irritating, and there are some serious plot holes (why, for instance, can Birthistle’s character drive at the end of the film, with her shattered leg). There’s also a problem with the ending, which is perhaps supposed to be scary, but the blank look on Hannah Tointon’s face, which may be supposed to frighten us, is so like the blank look she wears during the rest of the film that it’s hard to tell what Shankland is going for with that shot.

The Children is efficient and stylish, and with a better cast Tom Shankland may yet prove to be an interesting filmmaker.


Scream (18)
DIR: Wes Craven


Fourteen years on (wow, I feel old), Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson’s genre reviving slasher looks, in all honesty, pretty clunky. The analysis of the genre had been done better before (in Wes Craven’s New Nightmare) and has been done better since (in Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon) and without the novelty factor that it had on release the performances look ropey (Neve Campbell and Skeet Ulrich wooden, Matthew Lillard irritating as he chomps every bit of scenery in sight.) The only thing that really stands up is the extraordinary, terrifying, opening sequence.