A Serbian Film: BBFC Cut version [18]

DIR: Srdjan Spasojevic
CAST: Srdjan Todorovic, Sergej Trifunovic, Jelena Gavrilovic

You really can’t separate A SERBIAN FILM from the hype that has surrounded it since it was first seen in January. Horror cinema has lately been going through another of those periodic patches in which it is becoming notably more extreme, with each release seeming to aim for a new high (or low, depending on your point of view) watermark in how testing an experience it can be for its audience, and it seems that for many people A SERBIAN FILM is that latest high (or low) point – that said I’ve since heard that another Serbian film; THE LIFE AND DEATH OF A PORNO GANG, is even more extreme. Certainly this film has attracted more criticism for its violence than almost any in recent memory, with mere descriptions of scenes, especially the now infamous ‘newborn porn’ scene, serving for some as an indictment of how far the horror genre will stoop to excite its audience. It is perhaps this infamy, rather than the film’s content as such, which has resulted in the BBFC demanding 49 separate cuts – a total of four minutes and twelve seconds – to the version of the film I’m now reviewing.

This hype was one of two things I carried with me into the screening. The other was an awareness of director Srdjan Spasojevic’s repeated claims that his film, far from being a mere exercise in prurient violence, is in fact an allegorical tale about how Serbia has been mistreated by the political class. On the surface, at least, the film is about Milos (Todorovic), a former porn star who is lured out of family life with a big payday to work for a director (Trifunovic) who says that he wants to make a hardcore art film, and tells Milos that he’s to know nothing more about the project. As the film becomes more and more depraved, with violent sex scenes, often performed with young children watching, Milos decides that he wants to leave, but when he tries he is drugged and forced to continue with ever more depraved scenes for the film.

Whatever A SERBIAN FILM is, subtle it is not. Once you are made aware of the fact that the filmmakers claim that it is an allegory that fact is obvious in almost every scene, in fact it’s an incredibly simplistic message, casting Serbia as a rape victim and ‘porno artist’ Vukmir as the corrupt political class beating it and fucking it, if only from a distance. This is never more nakedly expressed than in the ‘newborn porn’ scene. Perhaps if I knew more about Serbian society and politics this would seem insightful and clever, but to be frank I just felt like someone was shouting an unconvincing argument at me. For all its heavy-handed attempts at bringing this message to bear on the film, I found it an empty experience. Even in this cut version it is relentlessly (often boringly) brutal, and I found little of the intelligence and weight that lifted films like MARTYRS and ANTICHRIST out of the torture porn ghetto.

I can’t deny that A SERBIAN FILM is well made. The gore effects are brilliantly handled, with a decapitation towards the end of the film being especially nasty and convincing, and Srdjan Spasojevic definitely shows promise as a director, as the level of craft that he’s put into the design of his shots here (especially during the shooting of Vukmir’s film) is diverting. This is when it’s a real shame that the film is so heavily cut, because there is obviously real thought behind the film’s visuals and its editing (it’s notable that there is actually relatively little really explicit gore here, much of the worst violence is cleverly shot to hide some of the detail without losing the impact). There is also an almost surreal quality to the film within the film, and that sense of Milos’ entering another world when he steps on to set is heightened by the stark and stylised lighting choices and the strange, structure free, dialogue of the porn film. The acting is also largely impressive (though Sergej Trifunovic does push the boat out too far towards the end, becoming a cartoonish embodiment of the already bludgeoned in message), but whatever the level of craft there was just something missing here for me.

A SERBIAN FILM wants to shock you. It probably will, but personally I need to be really involved in a film to be affected by it in that way, and I just wasn’t with this one. The message was so front and centre that it really got in the way, for me, of engaging with the characters on a purely human level, to me everything in this film ends up feeling like a piece of Spasojevic’s personal allegorical jigsaw. There also came a point at which the film was pushing the boat out so ridiculously far in its violence and transgression that I began guessing at the most fucked up thing they could do next, and ended up guessing much of the content of the last quarter of an hour. The one moment I didn’t see coming, by the way, is so utterly ridiculous that it too undermined any shock value of the scene.

As unconvinced and as disappointed as I am by A SERBIAN FILM as a whole, there is enough going on here to interest me in Srdjan Spasojevic’s next film, providing that he elects to tell a story rather than provide a blood drenched and unconvincing lecture. There is, of course, the possibility that restoring the missing four minutes and twelve seconds will transform the film into the masterpiece that some have claimed it to be, but somehow I doubt it.

makanan yang dapat meredakan gejala pilek dan flu

1. Cairan hangat

Menurut University of Maryland Medical Center, cairan hangat dapat membantu mengurangi hidung tersumbat dan gangguan pernapasan yang terkait dengan pilek dan flu. Cairan hangat juga dapat melonggarkan lendir serta membantu menghalau virus dari sel-sel tubuh. Kaldu, sup dan teh hangat adalah pilihan yang efektif untuk meredakan gejala flu.

2. Cabai rawit

"Cabai rawit segar dapat membantu Anda meringankan gejala flu dan pilek," tulis Dr James Balch dan Phyllis Balch dalam bukunya Prescription for Nutritional Healing.
Capsaicin yang terdapat di cabai merupakan senyawa kimia yang dapat membantu meningkatkan sirkulasi, memberikan nutrisi dan vitamin untuk sel yang terinfeksi. Panas capsaicin juga dapat membantu mengurangi sumbatan di dada dan rongga hidung.

3. Jahe

Jahe mengandung senyawa antivirus yang dapat membantu menghancurkan virus yang menyebabkan influenza dan pilek. Makanan ini juga dapat membantu meningkatkan sistem kekebalan tubuh, mendukung produksi senyawa antibakteri serta antivirus alami.

4. Zinc

Makanan yang mengandung banyak zinc dapat membantu meningkatkan sistem kekebalan tubuh dan mengurangi gejala pilek dan flu. Kacang, buncis, makanan laut (seafood), daging merah, telur dan kedelai merupakan makanan yang menjadi sumber zinc.

5. Bawang putih

Bawang putih mengandung senyawa kimia yang menawarkan sifat antibiotik yang kuat dan juga antivirus. Senyawa ini dapat meningkatkan kemampuan tubuh untuk menghancurkan virus pilek dan flu. Bawang putih juga dapat meningkatkan sirkulasi, membantu sistem peredaran darah, serta memberikan nutrisi penting seperti oksigen dan hidrasi pada sel-sel tubuh.sumber : http://www.detikhealth.com/read/2010/11/08/150054/1489403/766/makanan-penangkal-gejala-pilek-dan-flu

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 [12A]

DIR: David Yates
CAST: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint,
Ralph Fiennes, Helena Bonham Carter

For me, the Harry Potter film series came of age in the last act of Mike Newell’s entry HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE. With the single line “Kill the spare”, even before he had manifested as Ralph Fiennes, the series established the seriousness of the threat posed by Voldemort. Since then, David Yates has built on that moment with two films of increasing thematic and visual darkness, both of which seemed to be part of a long march to both all out war and a moment of destiny. The challenge now, over the two films that make up the adaptation of JK Rowling’s final Potter book, is to draw the threads together, to bring Harry to the dark place where the book climaxes. Unfortunately, DEATHLY HALLOWS: PART 1 is only a partial success, and as a whole it is Yates’ least impressive piece of Pottery yet (though, to be fair, that stacks it up against two of the best blockbusters of the past decade). That said, when the film works - and for large parts of the running time it does work - it is just as thrilling as those that have preceded it (at least since PRISONER OF AZKABAN).

It would be fair to describe the arc of this epic story as Shakespearean. Thus far the same cannot really be said of the performances from the films young leads. This is, though, just one of the many aspects in which this series has been on a consistent upward curve, and, perhaps seeing how important this film is, and how much it relies on them, Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint have all massively raised their game here, turning in performances that really dig into the emotions of these characters and the way the dark places they find themselves take a toll on them in a much deeper way than ever before. There’s actually less dialogue here than in most of the other films, and it is often in the quieter moments that the films works really well. This is especially felt in the two scenes added for the film, which didn’t appear in the book. One is a tense moment in which, despite all the protective enchantments they’re using, Harry and Hermione are nearly discovered when a band of hunters smell Hermione’s perfume, this is a great moment, because it injects a real and present sense of threat into a film that often lacks it. The other, which has apparently been divisive, is a brief scene in which Harry and Hermione dance together in their tent in the woods. It’s a lovely scene; a much needed touch of lightness amidst the drama, and also a moment that says a great deal about the characters connection to one another.

Though David Yates has described this as a road movie being a Harry Potter film and thus a big, expensive, special effects laden blockbuster, it’s also heavy on action scenes. This is the first time in the series that spellcasting has felt really threatening. You may have to have read the books or followed closely the previous films to know exactly what each spell does, but what can’t be mistaken is the way the scenes are now executed; there’s none of the dueling of old here, these are down and dirty gunfights, with potshots being taken at every opportunity and real consequences for missing. It’s a change perhaps most clearly signaled by the use of a fight trainer, rather than a dance teacher, to work with the actors for spellcasting scene this time round. This added violence does mean that, even more so than Yates’ previous Potter films, this one is not for the youngest audiences. The action scenes are thrilling though, hitting an early high with a brilliant chase as Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) and Harry try to escape from pursuing Death Eaters on Hagrid’s motorcycle. The chase goes up in the air, the wrong way up a motorway, and through the Dartford tunnel… upside down. The effects are seamless and the whole thing is breathlessly exciting. There are several more large scale action scenes, all of them excellent, but the film really becomes effective towards the end, when the violence gets personal. Hermione’s torture is genuinely upsetting, thanks to the effective performances of Helena Bonham-Carter (manic as ever as Bellatrix Lestrange), Watson and Grint. It is, though, the one scene where I got the feeling that Yates was holding back visually, probably for the sake of preserving the 12A rating.

Talking of visuals, one of the enduring pleasures of this series has been its subtly shifting style, from Chris Columbus’ cartoony PHILOSOPHER’S STONE to the grittier tone introduced in Alfonso Cauron’s PRISONER OF AZKABAN and refined by each subsequent film. The visual approach over the years seems to have been to darken the world along with the stories, and Yates and cinematographer Eduardo Serra have certainly done that here. The images are often so washed out that you could mistake them for black and white, making the spells that fly from various wands stand out, adding to their implied danger, and there is a slight grain to much of the film, which gives it a more immediate and real feel. It’s a beautifully designed film, with a lot of thought clearly going into every frame. I especially liked the stylized vision that Ron has when he’s supposed to destroy the horcrux; the way that Harry and Hermione appear too smooth, just a little unreal, and the stunning animated sequence that reveals the significance of the Deathly Hallows. The only slight downside on the visuals is the presence of a few shots that seem to have been included purely to exploit the thankfully aborted 3D conversion (which, by the way, would have rendered a film this dark completely unwatchable).

So, HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS: PART 1 has strong acting from its leads, a selection of exciting action scenes, gorgeous visuals, flawless special effects and even manages to be touching in places. So why am I not raving about it? Well, quite simply, it’s two and a half hours long, and though a great deal of the film works brilliantly it is also prone, thanks to adapting only half of JK Rowling’s (admittedly massive) novel, to longeurs. Okay, it’s hardly NEW MOON, but this film doesn’t actually move the overarching story on a great deal, and there are several more moping in the woods scenes than we really need. There are often long gaps between the vital plot points, and often those gaps aren’t filled with much more than the third of fourth iteration of the same argument between Harry and Ron, which can be tiresome, however well played it is. Much more damaging is that this film, despite taking place almost entirely with Harry, Ron and Hermione on the run, lacks the feel so expertly built in the previous two entries, of an ever encroaching darkness. Voldemort (Fiennes, still exuding creepiness form every pore), off on his own quest, feel a much less potent threat this time out and that march to war seems far off. It’s an absence that makes this film much less engaging than the last two.

While the leading performances are excellent, several of the new additions to the cast work much less well. Bill Nighy is a particular let down as the minister for magic. He simply turns up and does yet another variation of the one and only Bill Nighy performance (Welsh version). This is a real problem, because the Harry Potter films have created a huge, all encompassing, world, and Nighy’s scenes pop that bubble for a moment because, oh look, it’s Bill Nighy. Rhys Ifans is also disappointing as Xenophilius Lovegood, failing to capture the same lovable eccentricity that the wonderful Evanna Lynch manages as Luna, instead coming off as an irritant in a wig.

The two part structure is a difficult circle to square, and I suspect that the story would be better served as a single four hour epic, but I understand why Warner Brothers can’t release a four hour movie for eleven and twelve year olds, and trying to get the whole book into a single film would have been an almost impossible task. That said, David Yates has largely done a good job here, and particularly with where he splits the film. It ends on a surprisingly affecting loss, and on a moment of implied triumph, which acts as the best possible trailer for Part 2. This film may not quite stand up to comparisons with the two that have preceded it, but that’s not to say that it isn’t a great entertainment. HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS: PART 1 is an uncommonly good blockbuster, and when viewed alongside Part 2 it is likely to draw together into a seriously impressive piece of epic storytelling.

24FPS Top 100: No. 68

68: THE MUMMY [1932]
DIR: Karl Freund

Why is it on the list?
Much though I love James Whale’s Frankenstein films, this, for me, is the crowning glory of the justly celebrated cycle of Universal’s monster films. THE MUMMY was the first (and arguably the only really notable) directorial effort of Karl Freund, who had, in his native Germany had been one of the people most instrumental in creating the look of the German expressionist films (most notably as the cinematographer for Fritz Lang on METROPOLIS and for FW Murnau on DIE LETZE MANN.) It was an obvious piece of directorial casting; the Universal horror films all owed a great debt to Freund’s work anyway. It pays off brilliantly in the film, which is always wonderful to look at; devoid of the stagy feel that could often afflict films of the early 30’s, as they adjusted to the technical demands of sound. The film is also packed with evocative shots that, though they may have lost their ability to shock, retain nearly 80 years on the capacity to chill.

The story was obviously influenced by that of the so called curse of Tutankhamun, which had captured the public imagination in the few years since his tomb had been uncovered by Howard Carter’s team. The film sees Boris Karloff (billed on the film’s poster as Karloff the Uncanny) as the ancient Egyptian priest Imhotep, wakened from his cursed burial when archaeologists find his tomb. Ten years later Karloff (now posing as Egyptologist Ardeth Bey) believes he has found his long lost love, the reincarnation of the Princess Anacksunamon (played by the lovely Zita Johann). It’s not the most original tale, but it’s lifted by the telling.

‘Karloff the Uncanny’ may just sound like so much marketing crap, but it’s actually rather apt for his performance here. The film’s opening sequence, with Karloff wrapped in bandages (a painstaking Jack Pierce make up), is striking, but he’s much more creepy as Ardeth Bey. Pierce’s beautifully subtle aging make up for Karloff as Bey gives the suggestion of a mummy without constantly swathing the star in bandages, and along with the wonderful performance that Karloff gives; fragile, but alert, contributes much to the film’s very particular and very creepy atmosphere. Bey is an atypical monster; Karloff plays him with his own natural, soft, lisping voice (which makes the hypnotism sequences very convincing), it is Freund’s framing, and his expert use of light and shadow, that really brings out the monster in this Mummy, never so memorably as when we first see him in close up; Freund’s deep shadows making the wrinkles in Pierce’s make up stand out and Karloff’s face appear almost like a bare skull.

A few of the other performances are a little theatrical, but Zita Johann is effective - and radiant - as the object of Imhotep’s desire. At just 70 minutes THE MUMMY is pacy but unhurried, finding time for a brilliant flashback sequence detailing, in lurid pre-code detail, how Imhotep came to be entombed alive. This is one of the few early horror films that really retains its power to frighten, and that alone makes it one that deserves to be much more recognised than it is as, sadly, it is still often seen as the lesser cousin of the Frankenstein films.

Standout Scenes
Back to life
Some overacting here, but Freund’s sparing use f the Mummy is brilliant, and the moment that Karloff’s hand twitches still sends shiver down the spine.

The curse
Replicated almost shot for shot in Stephen Sommers’ (remarkably not terrible) remake, the original remains the best version.

Ardeth Bey
Karloff’s chilling entrance, and one of the high points of a great performance.



Memorable lines
Sir Joseph Whemple: [translating inscription on box] "Death... eternal punishment... for... anyone... who... opens... this... casket. In the name... of Amon-Ra... the king of the gods." Good heavens, what a terrible curse!
Ralph Norton: [eagerly] Well, let's see what's inside!

Im-ho-tep, alias Ardeth Bey: You will not remember what I show you now, and yet I shall awaken memories of love... and crime... and death...

Frank Whemple: Surely you read about the princess?
Helen Grosvenor/The Princess: So you did that.
Frank Whemple: Yes. The fourteen steps down and the unbroken seals were thrilling. But when we came to handle all her clothes and her jewels and her toilet things - you know they buried everything with them that they used in life? - well, when we came to unwrap the girl herself...
Helen Grosvenor/The Princess: How could you do that?
Frank Whemple: Had to! Science, you know. Well after we'd worked among her things, I felt as if I'd known her. But when we got the wrappings off, and I saw her face... you'll think me silly, but I sort of fell in love with her.
Helen Grosvenor/The Princess: Do you have to open graves to find girls to fall in love with?

Im-ho-tep, alias Ardeth Bey: Excuse me... I dislike being touched... an Eastern prejudice.

To buy the film, and help 24FPS out at the same time, please use the links below. Thanks.

December at 24 FPS

After taking a break in November, the themed months will be making a return in December with the first in a two month series called Sinema. I'll be looking at the depiction of controversial subjects and acts, and next month we'll be covering Sinema Part 1: Sex.

Hopefully this will take in all kinds of depictions of sex from all through cinema history; from racy pre-code Hollywood to It Happened One Night's 'walls of Jericho' and from (hopefully) the hardcore musical version of Alice in Wonderland to more recent boundary pushers like Baise Moi and Nine Songs.

There should also be a Cinematters to tie in with the series, and perhaps more besides.

We'll still have all the regular reviews, more Top 100 entries, and the review of the year, taking in 2010's best and worst films, and my awards for the year. And we'll be back in January with Sinema Part 2: Violence.

24FPS Top 100: No. 69

Click the title below for a trailer.

69: ANNA M. [2007]
DIR: Michel Spinosa

Why is it on the list?
Ideas, at least as far as movies go, often seem to come in pairs; think of DEEP IMPACT and ARMAGEDDON or VOLCANO and DANTE’S PEAK. While they weren’t released in the same year it does seem strange that there would be, in relatively quick succession, two French films about female erotomaniacs who become obsessed with their doctors, and further that both should feature Isabelle Carre in a prominent role. In HE LOVES ME, HE LOVES ME NOT (which is a rather lighter film, at least to begin with, than this one) Carre plays the wife of the doctor with whom Audrey Tautou becomes obsessed, but in ANNA M. she takes centre stage.

As good as the film around her is, the reason ANNA M. succeeds the way it does, the reason it’s on this list, is Isabelle Carre. Sadly only a few of he films have been granted a UK release, but Carre is reliably a highlight of anything she’s in and, aside from the fact that she has a very particular look; a sharp, but delicate and down to earth beauty, and an instantly recognisable smile, she’s a real chameleon. I’ve seen most of what’s available of her work, and she’s never the same twice, always vanishing into her characters, and that’s never been more true than it is here.

Carre’s Anna is a complex creation, drawn not with broad brush strokes but small, detailed work, some of which reveals its significance only when you rewatch the film. The tiny changes of expression in her first meetings with Dr. Zanevsky (Gilbert Melki), the way you see her take certain things as coded cues that lead to her obsession, these things only become clear on a second viewing, and it’s then that you see just how extraordinary, and just how complete, Carre’s performance is. She’s not afraid to go all out either; it’s a viscerally physical performance at times, most notably in the palpably painful moment when Anna smacks her head repeatedly against a lamppost. As damaged and as dangerous as Anna is, neither Carre nor the film judge her, and it’s this that allows you to if not empathise then certainly to sympathise with her.

Director Michel Spinosa did a lot of research into the clinical process of erotomania before writing ANNA M. and it shows. The film is a character study of both Anna, who seems like she’d ordinarily be a nice, if quiet, young woman and of her illness. Documenting it through several stages, captioned things like; Illumination, Hope and Hate, Spinosa shows the increasing effect that Anna’s obsession has on her. There are elements of a horror film here; in the scenes where Anna stalks Zanevsky, and especially in a later scene in which she is alone in his apartment, but this isn’t SINGLE WHITE FEMALE, it never becomes overblown. What really resonates is the blink and you’ll miss it significance of Spinosa’s final shot. On this viewing I began to wonder how real the last three or four minutes of the film are supposed to be, because the sun drenched countryside in which they take place seems almost dreamlike compared to the rather grey rendering Paris is given in the rest of the film, but either way, it’s a haunting moment that you’ll want to keep your eyes peeled for.

I’d pretty much always recommend that you see any film starring Isabelle Carre, she’s just that good, but in ANNA M. she’s leagues better than that, it’s work that shames most Oscar winning performances, and elevates an already very strong film to this list.


Standout Scenes
Illumination
The first moment that Anna becomes obsessed by Dr. Zanevsky is beautifully subtly rendered, with a silent serenity from Carre.

Coffee
Anna’s desperation as she asks for just one memento of Zanevsky is at once hugely manipulative and absolutely heartbreaking to watch.

Checking Out
Anna's interview as she leaves psychiatric care; an acting masterclass from Carre that operates on multiple levels.

If you want to buy the film, and help out 24FPS at the same time, please use the links below. Thanks.

Due Date [15]

DIR: Todd Phillips
CAST: Robert Downey Jr, Zach Galifianakis, Michelle Monaghan

A series of open letters on the subject of DUE DATE.

Dear Alan R. Cohen, Alan Freedland, Adam Sztykiel and Todd Phillips,
I should probably address you as you’re credited for your screenplay. So, let’s start with Alan and Alan. You guys are credited with DUE DATE’s story. This makes me laugh quite a lot (more, certainly, than the movie, but believe me, we’ll get to that) anyway, what you are very optimistically credited with as your own invention isn’t, it’s PLANES, TRAINS AND AUTOMOBILES. Oh you’ve dressed it up with some swearing, some wanking and some child abuse, sure, but it’s still PLANES, TRAINS AND AUTOMOBILES so lets be absolutely clear about this; if DUE DATE is to have a story credit, it belongs to John Hughes. Not that he’d want it; in fact I believe he’s the source of the faint spinning sound I heard throughout my screening.

Since I’m assuming (perhaps charitably, knowing Hollywood’s track record) that you guys didn’t get paid for simply saying: “Let’s remake PLANES, TRAINS AND AUTOMOBILES… but with two characters with severe personality disorders.” I have to assume that at least some of the ‘comic’ scenarios are yours. How about the sheer breathless hilarity of Robert Downey, Jr spitting on a dog (an apt metaphor, actually, for what he should have done with this script)? Or the gut busting scene where Zach Galifianakis has a wank (there’s a metaphor about the script in that too, can you spot it?) Oh, what about the brilliantly funny moment in which, completely inexplicably, Downey and Galifianakis get thrown off a plane, was that yours too? Or were you just responsible for the slavish copying of a John Hughes movie. You know, the bit where Zach Galifiankis (playing John Candy) falls asleep while driving, or Galifiankis’ habit of asking endless inane questions of Downey (as Steve Martin), or the bit where Downey attempts to pick up money wired to him by his wife, which is very reminiscent of Martin trying to rent a car in Planes, Trains… only not funny and with some gratuitous violence tacked on… because it’s ‘edgy’? Jesus Christ guys, get your own unfunny ideas.

By the way, Adam and Todd, don’t go thinking I’m letting you guys off. You rewrote this. That means that you took this dog shit covered ball and ran with it, dropping it in a few freshly laid turds along the way. I don’t know what’s yours, but the whole Mexican border sequence is so laughably tacked on that it pretty much has REWRITE stamped on every frame, and the hamfisted, implausible, unmotivated hugging and learning scenes are something of a trademark, aren’t they Todd? Anyway, Todd, I’ll write back because I’ve got plenty more to say to you.

Dear Todd Phillips,
Where to begin? Oh, right, what the fuck were you thinking? Here’s a script that, at its heart, is about a man (Downey) trying to get home for the birth of his first child. There really are few things easier to identify with, everyone wants to be there when his kids come into the world and it should also be easy to root for a guy with that objective, but you just keep undermining that identification. Not only is Peter Highman an utter raging asshole to pretty much everyone he encounters (including his wife, played by Michelle Monaghan, and by the way, when you hire an actress that good you might want to give her more to do than be a walking incubator) he’s also violent and abusive to adults, small animals and an eight year old child. I just want to take a moment, Todd, to have a look at the scene in which Peter is asked to watch a drug dealer’s (Juliette Lewis) kids while she sells Ethan (Galifiankis) weed. They’re pretty typical kids; they mess around with Peter, pester him, pull his tie, so he PUNCHES ONE OF THEM IN THE STOMACH. And you expect me to want this guy to get back for the birth of his baby? Have you completely taken leave of your senses? I’m worrying about what he’s going to do when the kid cries, I don’t want this shitbag to meet his child, let alone see it born. It’s one thing to have a protagonist to start out unlikable, but warm up credibly over the length of a journey (there was film you may have seen that did it quite well… Planes in the title I think), it’s entirely another to ask us to empathise with a violent misanthrope and want him to become a parent.

Beyond the troubling things you’re saying with this film, you’re saying them pretty poorly. It’s just a series of bits, the characters don’t have an arc. Ethan never changes one bit (like many of the ‘eccentric’ characters in recent cinema I worry that he’s an undiagnosed Aspergers case). By contrast, Peter seems to change scene by scene in the second half of the film; he hates Ethan / he’s Ethan’s best friend / he wants to kill Ethan / he loves Ethan. There’s almost no effort to explain these changes in Peter’s outlook. Is he schizophrenic? Films about mismatched buddies work because we see them change and adjust and warm up to each other. Neither of these people is appreciably different as the end credits roll, so what’s the story, where’s the investment?

In about five weeks you’re going to be 40. I wouldn’t believe it from this film, because you appear to have the sense of humour of a twelve year old. Violence, puking, animal genitals, masturbation, smoking weed, all these things are funny in and of themselves, who needs jokes? On a craft level too this film appears to be the work of a child. There’s barely an imaginative or interesting shot in the whole film (the only really striking visual in the film is provided free of charge by the grand canyon.) you may have styled this “A Todd Phillips Movie” but frankly it could be any rentahack’s movie. You seem to bring the same lack of engagement to the directing the performances as you do to the visuals and the general arc of the story, but you can find out a bit more about what I’ve got to say on that subject from reading the letters I’m sure Robert Downey Jr and Zach Galifianakis will want to share with you.


Dear Robert Downey Jr and Zach Galifiankis,
You are both clearly talented men, so exactly what are you doing in DUE DATE? Robert, you are still on the wagon, right? Zach, did the weed make this read funny?

Robert, you seem pissed off in this movie. I can’t blame you, but I’m not sure if it’s a character choice (if it was, a touch of advice… next time additional choices will result in a more rounded performance) or you just woke up every morning, read the pages you had to do, and then simply decided to treat them with the absolute contempt that they so richly deserve. Either way man, you’ve built up an enormous amount of good will over the past few years, and frankly you’re now in danger of pissing it all away with performances as phoned in as this one and your recent second take on IRON MAN (actually in this one your character spends so much time on his Bluetooth headset I wonder whether it ever crossed your mind to deliver the performance that way. Also, much though I like you as an actor, I really don’t like you enough to root for a man who punches an 8 year old, let alone laugh when he does.

Zach, oh and it was all going so well. You were the funny bit of Todd’s last offense against comedy; THE HANGOVER, you’ve just turned in a really fine dramatic performance in IT’S KIND OF A FUNNY STORY, and now this? Just how much do you owe Todd Phillips? Are there gambling debts involved, or was it just the weed? The thing about Alan (the same person by another name that you played in The Hangover) was that he wasn’t always there, he was the spice, a little comedy condiment sprinkled just liberally enough to make that film close to palatable. The problem with Ethan is that he’s never off screen and by God he wears thin quickly. As monumental a dick as Peter is it’s pretty hard to blame him when he first abandons Ethan (actually it’s less understandable when he goes back). Characters have to change, the journey in a road movie has to be more than physical, and from what you did here I’m not convinced that Ethan is a character at all, rather he’s an assortment of shtick; collected tics accumulated over a set of improv sessions. There’s nothing more behind it, and that’s why neither the comedy nor the story work.

I’m really disappointed in you guys, you’re reliably interesting and funny actors. I guess you just couldn’t overcome this screenplay and this director.

Dear Readers,
Don’t go and see DUE DATE, it’s shit. Even if it were better though, I’d still advise you to steer clear of it, because it already exists, has for 23 years, and if you want to see a comedy about two mismatched middle aged men traversing America in order to return home for a specific event, running into a series of comic mishaps, but becoming closer as time and travel go on, you should just see PLANES, TRAINS AND AUTOMOBILES again. It’s what Todd Phillips would do, and if you do maybe we can stop that spinning sound coming from John Hughes’ grave.

Thanks for listening, and best wishes
Sam Inglis

24FPS expands

Over the last couple of years, thanks to you guys who have been reading my increasingly long and ranty reviews and other assorted ramblings here, I've tried to build 24FPS from a typical little blog - one guy typing in his living room - into something a bit more ambitious, adding content and new ways to interact with the site along the way.

Now there are two new ways you can stay up to date with what I'm writing at 24FPS... and beyond.

First off, 24FPS is now on Facebook. It's a page for the site, not for me, and that's the way it's going to stay, but once I figure out exactly how much I can do with it will hopefully become something of a hub for site news, a feed of updates on my writing, and whatever else I can think to throw up on the wall. Here's the link: 24FPS on Facebook

Even more exciting for me is that I'm branching out. During the London Film Festival I was asked to become Film Editor for MultiMediaMouth. Along with the site's editor I'm working at putting together a team of critics, and I'll be writing regular reviews and features for the site. Don't worry, it won't cut into 24FPS updates, I'll just have to work harder. Anyway, my first MMM review, of DESPICABLE ME was posted last night and you can check it out here.

Thanks, as ever, for reading. I hope you'll stick with me on these new ventures.

24FPS Top 100 Films: No. 70

70: INVASION OF THE BODYSNATCHERS [1956]
DIR: Don Seigel


Why is it on the list?
Films about alien invasions are very seldom actually about extra terrestrials coming to Earth. Beneath that surface there is almost always something else, and entirely Earthbound concern which the film is commenting on through its story. This was seldom more true than in the 1950’s when a fascination with ‘the bomb’ and the fear of communism ‘reds under the bed’ led to an explosion in what has come to be called paranoid sci-fi.

Among these films the original adaptation of INVASION OF THE BODYSNATCHERS stands head and shoulders above the herd. It’s nakedly about communism, and about McCarthyism. The film documents events in a small town when local doctor Miles Bennell (Kevin McCarthy, who frequently parodied and referenced this role in other films, right up until his death this year, aged 94). The thing that is really scary about this story, and this telling of it, is that the monster isn’t some 7 foot alien with acid for blood… it’s your wife, or your teacher, or your kid. The alien seed pods that arrive in town early in the film replicate the townspeople one by one, turning them into emotionless husks (or communists, if you’re tracking the metaphor here).

Don Seigel (one of Hollywood’s great journeyman directors, able to turn his hand to many genres) keeps a vice like grip on the film, cutting the narrative right to the bone so that every moment adds to either character (developing, for example, McCarthy’s relationship with local beauty Dana Wynter) or to the ever increasing tension. The square jawed McCarthy makes for a strong hero, but what’s really great is that the film doesn’t feel that it has to show him saving the day, in fact this is perhaps the bleakest of the paranoid sci-fi films, with its ending suggesting not that we will prevail but that what we’ve seen is just the first stage of what will become global domination by the pods.

It’s still a relevant work (especially at the moment actually, with the more extreme right wing elements of the US media accusing its president of being a commie) and the story has been remade three times (and that’s not even counting unofficial adaptations like THE FACULTY), but none has ever recaptured the bottled lightning of this first take.


Standout Scenes
The greenhouse
The glimpse of a pod person in mid transformation is one of the film’s most memorable shots.

Ending
From the chilling scene in which Miles wakes in the cave to find that Becky has been assimilated, to the justly famous (and much parodied) final frames of Miles running down the highway screaming “You’re next” at the passing traffic, the sense of doom this film closes with is one of its greatest assets

Memorable Lines
Stanley Driscoll: Is the baby asleep yet, Sally?
Nurse Sally Withers: No, but she will be soon. And there'll be no more tears.
Stanley Driscoll: Shall I put this in her room?
[referring to the alien seed pod he is carrying]
Nurse Sally Withers: Yes, in her playpen.

Wilma Lentz: There's no emotion. None. Just the pretense of it. The words, the gesture, the tone of voice, everything else is the same, but not the feeling.

Dr. Miles J. Bennell: I never knew fear until I kissed Becky.

Dr. Miles J. Bennell: They're here already! You're next! You're next, You're next...!

If you want to buy the film and help 24FPS out at the same time, please use the links below. Thanks.

LFF 2010: Podcast with Supermarcey

My LFF 210 coverage is (finally) coming to an end. I've got a few more review to write, and a wrap up feature to follow. Here, though, are the high and low points of my experience at this year's festival. I was joined by my good friend Marcey (writer from Arrow in the Head, Killer Film and her own site www.supermarcey.com) to discuss the fest by talking about my Top and Bottom 5 films from the 56 I saw.

As with all our podcasts it's quite long, sometimes rambling, sometimes digressive, but it was a fun conversation and should be an entertaining listen. Enjoy.

LFF 2010: Nothing's All Bad

DIR: Mikkel Munch-Falls
CAST: Mille Lehfeldt, Sebastian Jessen,
Bodil Jørgensen, Henrik Prip

Mikkel Munch-Falls’ first feature is one of the most accomplished debuts I’ve seen in a long time (and a lot of filmmakers took their first bows at this year’s LFF). If you want to wrap NOTHING’S ALL BAD lazily up in a nutshell then you could say that it’s a Danish MAGNOLIA, focusing on the sex lives of four disparate, but increasingly linked, characters, but that really would do a disservice to a film that is much more distinctive than that.

Each character drives their own story. There is Ingeborg (Jørgensen), a widow in her sixties who is increasingly isolated. This leads her to, one night, bring home Anders (Jessen), a nineteen year old working as a bi-sexual rent boy. Then there is Anna (Lehfeldt), an attractive woman in her early thirties, who worries that her recent mastectomy has made her unattractive and there is Anders (Prip), a middle-aged man whose drive to expose himself has seen him convicted of sexual offences. All their stories unfold separately, but they also cross paths, and draw together into an utterly compelling patchwork.

Each story is compelling in and of itself, but for me none more so than Anna’s heartbreaking section of the film. Mille Lehfeldt, who has little dialogue to work with and few scenes with other characters, gives perhaps the best performance I’ve seen by an actress this year. She’s able to communicate the turmoil that Anna is going through with a series of gestures, with the way she regards her scarred body. It would be easy to play Anna badly, any actress could scream, tear her hair out, break down in tears while feeling her chest. Lehfeldt does none of this, instead she internalizes, making the smallest of moments feel like an emotional shot to the gut. I can’t tell you where Anna’s story ends up, but it’s horrifically sad, and difficult to uderstand if you saw it written down, but Lehfeldt, with the help of Munch-Falls’ sensitive script, sells every moment.

By singling out Mille Lehfeldt I don’t wish to take away from the contributions of the other actors. These are extreme roles, going to places that are explicit and challenging, and all the actors more than rise to the challenge. Henrik Prip has perhaps the hardest job, because though not all the characters could be described as sympathetic, Anders should be utterly loathsome. The first time we see him he’s exposing himself in the park, sitting next to a pretty young woman, masturbating. In a brave choice neither the film nor Prip judge Anders, and rather than loathsome they make him pathetic, pitiable. As Ingeborg, Bodil Jørgensen sketches a moving portrait of a woman left alone after a long marriage, but not wanting to be starved of attention or affection. Her moment of realization when, after they kiss, Anders suggest the “we get the money out of way now” is especially painful. NOTHING’S ALL BAD (incidentally, a terrible title compared to literal translation “Beautiful People”) pivots around Jonas, and for a while he seems to be the thread that ties everything together. It’s perhaps the most stock role; we’ve seen this young male hustler before, but Sebastian Jessen makes him real. He’s especially good when Jonas is taken in by a middle-aged couple, becoming just another carefree teenager, until the tables turn in one horrifying moment.

Mikkel Munch-Falls, a former critic making his first film, has a firm grip on his story and characters, so much so that even the final scene, which could easily have felt trite, works. Rather than making everything okay in the last moments, Munch-Falls emphasizes what lies underneath the scene, the secrets just waiting to pop up. He never lets the dam burst, instead it plays as something that underlies every word and gesture, investing every frame with a sickly tension. Stylistically Munch-Falls favors letting us dwell in a moment, his camera moves only when motivated to, and this, along with the sedate editing, helps draw us in to these lives.

Some people will find this film horrible. Point of fact, it is horrible, but that shouldn’t blind you to the brilliant acting, the intelligent observation of the darker side of people’s lives, the way the film makes you feel for these characters without going for a single obvious mawkish moment. As is so often the case with the best thngs on show at a festival, NOTHING’S ALL BAD is yet to find a UK distributor, if it doesn’t manage to pick up one of the braver indie companies then you really should seek this film out as it serves notice of several extremely interesting talents, as well as being, quite simply, one of the best films of the year.