kieronboote-134-969472 Reviews

X (II) (2022)

"We're gonna be rich...."

[9/10 · 24 March 2022]

On the surface this film is a wonderful love letter to those grainy, gritty horror classics from the 70's such as Tobe Hopper's "the Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (1974) and "Eaten Alive" (1976). The photography, from that opening 4:3 ratio shot onwards, editing and mise en scene all conjure up memories of Hooper's great early films. However, this is not some self-conscious, Tarantinoesque Grindhouse movie, because all of these elements serve perfectly to conjure up the atmosphere of a lonely, hot farmhouse in 1970's Texas and also add to the growing sense of tension and unease. Yes, you certainly can play Post-modernist "Spot the film reference bingo" but you feel that Ti West respects the horror film genre and that he uses these references as an acknowledgement not an attempt to look cool.

The pacing and forward momentum is excellent, allowing us to get to know the characters and therefore care about them. The script/dialogue is convincing and the sense of being drawn into a nightmare wholly palpable.

The cast are uniformly excellent. Mia Goth is a genuine screen presence, ethereal, lost and damaged, despite her optimism about her impending stardom. Brittany Snow is an absolute revelation. I remember her fondly in "Hairspray" (2007) as Amber Von Trussle but since then she has been a fairly anonymous presence in some very bland movies such as "Prom Night" (2008). Here she is the "good time girl" who knows the score, who knows where her talents lie and is long past the stage where she engages in the kind of daydreams that motivate Mia Goth's character. If we still made film noir films she would be a great lead in those type of movies, bringing a sense of pragmatism and wordly-wisdom to her character.

There is a clear subtext, also reflected in one of the major casting choices, about the loss of youth, desire and ambition. Continuing with a theme contained in the 2022 Netfix "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" this film pits the elderly against the young. I'm not sure why this is emerging as a theme in horror at the moment? After all you'd think with the older generation ruining the economy, house prices, the environment etc for the younger generation the "revenge" would be the other way around!? Meanwhile the televangelist plays out in the background in the grimmest scenes.

The film also plays with the theme of sex and violence and I think, as evidenced by the Sheriff's final comments at the end of the film, engages in the debate around why in the USA people are willing to accept violence in their daily visual entertainment media but are disturbed by sex and nudity. The economics of low budget movie making and the commercial opportunities presented by early video are also explored. RJ, the director, wants to make art, Wayne, the producer, wants to make money.

The violence in this film is grim, the sex pretty uninhibited and that is what the directors had to include in their movies back in the 70's to compete with mainstream movies with big stars, big budgets and coast to coast promotion! Unfortunately, that "edge" has gone from the hundreds of awful modern low budget "horror" films that exist now on platforms such as Amazon, as they serve up a series of films that barely exist because they are so devoid of content or ability. "X" on the other hand works on every level and will hopefully serve as an inspiration to new filmmakers as opposed to the dreadful "found footage", "haunted house" etc template that most of them currently operate within.

In a horror film world of tedious production line remakes and pointless low budget movies "X" is the best horror film I've seen over the last 3 or 4 years as it engages with your heart, naughty bits, and brain, as all truly great horror films should!

I understand that West has already undertaken a lot of work on a prequel and that a sequel may be planned as well. I'm certainly looking forward to those with anticipation but "Ti, don't mess it up".

Mare of Easttown (2021)

Shame about the last 20 minutes.......

[7/10 · 19 August 2021]

This was a very enjoyable series with some interesting twists and turns. It was refreshing to see the story set in an ordinary working-class community.

The cast was uniformly excellent, although there was little on-screen chemistry between Kate Winslet and Guy Pearce.

However, what a great pity about the horribly schmaltzy last 20 minutes in which Kate Winslet character went from being flawed and interesting to suddenly finding redemption in every aspect of her character's life. The most ridiculous aspect of which was the forgiveness she received from her best friend, the same "best friend" who's young son Winslet's character had unnecessarily sent to juvenile detention and given a criminal record to.

A brave performance from Kate up to that point but the conclusion lost credibility. I don't know whether this was due to the writer meeting run of the mill Hollywood audience expectations or movie star ego but what a shame to spoil the series that way.

Zombieland: Double Tap (2019)

10 years in the making, must have taken 10 minutes in the writing!! (warning review contains a lot of spoilers)

[3/10 · 22 December 2019]

What a lifeless, charmless, reactionary, rip off and a waste of time this film is. Unlike the first film there is very little warmth or humour in the film, just mean-spirited comments aimed at the new character Madison (played by Zoey Deutch). The other young people in the film are shown to be hippy-drippy, apart from the one who is smart enough to stash away a gun obviously! Did the NRA sponsor this movie? Plot developments are signposted as clearly as the "rules " and may as well be up on the screen as soon as they occur e.g. Tallahassee is part Indian and they used to herd buffalo over cliffs. Hhmmmnn I wonder if they will herd some zombies later? No one is allowed to take a gun into the hippy camp. Hhmmnn I wonder if someone will magically unveil one just in the nick of time? Hey someone has a Monster truck ( really something that probably does one mile to the gallon is the vehicle of choice in the postapocalyptic world?) . Hhmmmnn I wonder if that will appear later? Guns, Elvis, monster trucks and comments such as "God Bless rednecks" just about sums up this move is aimed at. Plot devices are ripped off from other films. The joke about claiming to write old songs from "Goldmember", the meeting up with identical groupings from "Sean of the Dead", evolving zombies from "Day of the Dead" etc (although these "T1000 zombies" are about as threatening as a basket of kittens and are easily dispensed with. ) Jesse Eisenberg shows that he really is a pretty one note actor with the screen presence of a lettuce, Emma Stone is wasted, Woody tries his best and what on earth an intelligent lady like Rosario Dawson is doing in this ( other than picking up a pay check and meeting an audience ) I have no idea? The screenwriters were Rhett Reese, who was involved with the "Deadpool" movies so I would have expected more but looking at the cv of the other writer, Dave Callahan, he seems to have been consistently involved in dispiriting, pointless, multiplex fodder so I guess a lot of the blame lies at his door. I really enjoyed the first "Zombieland" movie because of the character interaction and the great Bill Murray set piece but this is like a Michael Bay film, occasionally thinks blow up, shots are fired, there is no tension, no character development, no point and then it ends........

Black Summer (2019–2021)

Just awful.

[6/10 · 19 April 2019]

I'll generally watch anything zombie related but this is just drivel. Badly written, badly staged, VERY badly acted, with the actor (!!??) Kelsey Flower being the least convincing of a very bad group and flatly directed with no tension whatsoever. What a waste of time and resources.

Happy End (2017)

A Happy End for some.......

[10/10 · 19 January 2018]

I have seen some wonderful films recently such as "Three Billboards....", "The Shape of Water" etc that I really enjoyed. Then you see a film by a master like Haneke and suddenly you are transported to a whole new level of film making. This is a film that intellectually and visually provides a commentary on the state of the world at the moment. Haneke is a sort of Noam Chomsky for the eyes but as the supreme moral chronicler his world view has a satisfyingly more muscular and biting edge to it. Indeed Haneke operates on an intellectual and moral level that very few filmmakers have ever approached. Only a handful of films such as Godard's "Weekend" ( although Godard can never escape a blatant didacticism, or a frequent obsession with his leading ladies), Greenaway's "The Cook, the Thief His Wife and Her Lover" and Bunuel's "the Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie" provide such a pleasure for the senses and the brain as Haneke's work does..

The film launches you into the various machinations of a construction company owning upper middle class family. Sexualised internet messages from people having affairs, phone camera's voyeuristically recording someone's mother as she passes from intimate daily routines through to the anonymous and almost impersonalised death throes of the character. These moments are designed to actively engage your brain right from the outset as you start to try and construct the narrative gaps. However they also serve, mirroring Haneke's 1992 film "Benny's Video", to show the distancing effect of technology on real human interaction and the almost sociopathic impact that this technology has on people's minds.

The film places us at the centre of a successful, cultured and beautiful family headed by a grandfather sinking towards dementia, brilliantly played by Jean Louis Trintignant who at 87 may have delivered here his greatest performance since the "Conformist". As we move behind this facade we see a son, played by Mathieu Kassovitz , who is a care giving doctor in his daily life but someone who does not know how to love or give genuine care to his own family, a man who is at his most alive typing out his sexual fantasies on facebook messenger. There is an austere daughter, played by the greatest screen actress of her generation Isabelle Huppert, who is the cold steel holding the family construction business together. There is the troubled grandson, Huppert's son, played by Franz Rogowski, physically imperfect and hence doomed to failure. Then there is the sweet looking granddaughter, brilliantly played Fantine Harduin, who delivers an astonishing performance for a 12 year old, who has been so tainted by this dysfunctional family and by the her constant reliance upon a version of life that is one step removed from reality by her phone video camera that she can barely grasp the fundamental morals of reality. Yet tragically all that she wants is to be loved and to belong.

There are the house servants of North African origin and the mongrel family dog, always filmed from the outside looking in and reduced to taking it's frustration out on the lowest ranking member of the household, the cooks daughter. Perhaps representing a world where the disenfranchised have their hatred misdirected to other struggling people rather than focussing upon those who are really responsible for their difficulties.

This is a living breathing world trapped inside the problems of the current day. Where migrants are forced to leave their homes, not for economic reasons but because their family members have been burnt alive by fundamentalist Muslims, Muslim extremists funded by Trump's fossil fuel buddies the Saudi Arabians and subtly referenced by the oil rigs shown in the film. A time and place where the simple physical presence of these dark skinned people at a gleaming white wedding serves to show the profound contrast in these people's lives. A world where Brexit is serving to disrupt the relationship between England and France (hence the inclusion of the English speaking character played by Toby Jones). A world where everything is contractual and where an ordinary working man's life is worth 35,000 Euro's and the compensation for a dog bite on a North African child is the remnants of a box of chocolates.

A brilliantly crafted film where every second seems to be perfectly judged, from intimate interiors to a terrific exterior tracking shot of the suicidal family patriarch, but keeping us as distanced observers, inviting us to actually THINK not consume. A film where every interior, every wardrobe choice seems to be casually perfect. Inside this coruscating study of an upper middle class family Mr Haneke has produced a time capsule of the difficulties of living in a world where the richest 1% have as much wealth as the next 99% of people of the world and where the news media and impersonalising, isolating influence of social media drives us to misunderstand issues and to hate the rest of the 99%. A film with a happy ending for one of the characters, and one that I have to say I found highly amusing, and an ending that reinforces that the rich can literally get away with murder.

Hallows Eve (2016)

I'm only reviewing this as a mercy to anyone thinking of watching it.....

[1/10 · 15 October 2017]

I guess on virtually every review page there will be someone who describes the film they are reviewing as the "worst film ever made".....well they are all wrong because this IS the worst and most stupid film ever made.

Why is it stupid? The timeline in the narrative makes no sense - the vigilantes start posting their "tags" and planning their revenge BEFORE the most heinous of the acts they seek vengeance for has even occurred. The revenge takes place against some completely innocent people for no reason whatsoever. We are expected to believe that the ordinary working class dad's who are the vigilantes apparently decided it was important to spend around 8 hours huddled together making about 100 pumpkin lanterns - and even the most stupid policeman would then know to arrest the blokes who bought at consignment of 100 pumpkins.

The direction is flat and lifeless. The editing is by the numbers. The dialogue is laughable. And the acting.....oh the "acting"....Ethan Taylor and Lenox Kambaba, the toughest, baddest guys in town, are 2 of the biggest mummy's boys you are likely to encounter in any film. I'm afraid to say that Sarah Akokhia, who is supposed to have had some previous romance with Mr Kambaba and is supposedly at University looks old enough to be his mum! Lots of running around, lots of very sub Attack the Block attitude, lots of silly and inconsistent behaviour and not a single brain cell in use.

I have honestly seen thousands of films and obviously among that number there have been some truly awful films over the years but none that made me feel as if my intelligence was being insulted quite as badly as this one.

There is a great inter generational horror film to be made about the old killing the young with a post Brexit sub text but this isn't it, this is simply STUPID. There are so many great films to watch so I'm just trying to save your precious time by warning you.......please don't waste your time on this utter rubbish.

Suicide Squad (2016)

A shame ..........in both senses of the word.

[4/10 · 17 August 2016]

"Watchmen" was a respectable film adaptation of perhaps the greatest comic book and along with "Kick Ass" made the first moves towards a more adult orientated adaptation of a comic book. The first "Iron Man" movie (the horrible simpering Gwyneth Paltrow aside) was a terrific comic book adaptation that along with "Guardians of the Galaxy" showed just how much undiluted fun comic book films could be. Then "Deadpool" ramped up everyone's expectations of what could be delivered in a comic book adaptation. "Suicide Squad", if delivered properly, could have been the next step in liberating comic book adaptations from the world of cliché and the low expectations of the lowest common denominator consumer market. But sadly the film is a badly scripted and pedestrianly directed failure.

What should have been a surrealistic kaleidoscope of chaotic, sexy violence is reduced to a tedious "buddy cop" type movie bonding between the characters of Flagg and Deadshot. Meanwhile the only real successes of the film, Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn and Jared Leto's "Joker", are reduced to occasional side show carnival acts. Harley objectified and only justified psychologically as the Joker's lesser half which denies much of the complexity of the original character. The opportunities for caustic comedy dialogue are missed at almost every turn by the witless script which shows no respect for the intelligence of the audience or craftsmanship in its execution.

Unimaginative direction reduces the film to head shot reactions of the various squad members and very obviously staged medium shot soap opera action scenes – there's certainly nothing here to match the violent poetry and brilliant editing of the opening bridge scene in "Deadpool". The scene where "Deadshot" single-handedly and with lethal precision takes out the horde of rather uninspired pimple creatures could have been jaw dropping but in the hands of Ayer is reduced to formulaic blandly edited mediocrity.

The basic structure of the film falls into two halves. The first is the inevitable and drawn out series of montages describing the origins of the Squad members. Not very well assembled and here, as throughout the film, the makers fail to make a clear decision on how to assign time to the various team members. We then we move into the second half with the core narrative during which the squad take on the character of The Enchantress and her Brother. The motivations and reasoning behind this conflict are muddled and there is no tension because we do not know properly what threat the "enemy" represent. There is no philosophical or ideological differences between the combatants so it's all just a performing puppet show staged between people we don't care about and there is no explanation as to why someone who has existed for 4,000+ years suddenly decides to act at this precise moment. As the film then plods along to it's inevitable conclusion we are reduced to something that closely approximates a poor copy of the original "Ghostbusters" movie, swirling tacky pyro-techniques above a tall building and a pay off of the "love interest" Cara Delevigne, pretty underwhelming in her central performance I'm afraid, being discovered, just like Sigourney Weaver in "Ghostbusters", inside the crust of a dead creature.

I feel very sorry for Margot Robbie and Jared Leto because clearly they both tried their best to invest their characters with the inhabited personality and conviction that they need to bring Harley Quinn and the Joker to life but they may as well have been in another movie to the lumpen action tedium surrounding them. The scene showing Harley's fantasy ideal as being the life of a little housewife locked away in her own kitchen with a couple of kids shows the essentially reactionary nature of this movie, and is consistent with the largely negative representation of women in the rest of Ayer's output. Thus we are asked to believe that someone who started out as an intelligent medical professional, challenged by the idea of chaos and who was drawn to the complexities of the Joker's personality and who then transforms into a sexy super killing machine really only longs for bland domesticity?

There are so many plot, motivation and character holes in the film that it comes across as being made up as it goes along. For example the head of the project Amanda Walker, played by Viola Davis in a thankless role, engages in many ruthless acts throughout the film such as cold heartedly shooting and killing her own FBI agents but then for no real reason allows Deadshot time off to visit his daughter - which bizarrely morphs into being yet another tedious bonding moment between Flagg and Deadshot rather than between Deadshot and his daughter!

The box office may be the end that justifies the means for the clowns in suits who clearly felt this was adequate for public consumption but I'm afraid I don't like to be treated as if I'm stupid and I hate "by the numbers" consumer film making so I won't be returning for another episode of "Suicide Squad" unless the studio execs consign Mr Ayer back to the dumb macho movies that his CV is best suited to and then plead with the team behind "Deadpool" to get involved. But then whilst the cinema going public are all wasting their money on a lazily put together mess like this why would Warner Brothers bother to try and make an interesting, thought provoking quality film? Keep the masses sedated like the inmates of Arkham Asylum!

Holidays (2016)

A Classy Compendium

[7/10 · 17 April 2016]

This omnibus film turned out to be an enjoyable treat. Each section had it's own individual tone and appearance that was very well suited to the tale being told. It appears as if the need to compete with the other film makers has encouraged all of the writers/directors to film their sections with care and style and to produce an interesting contribution to the project.

Each section seemed to have it's own colour palette. The Valentine's Day section may have had a rather telegraphed ending but the red swimming costumes (and those eyebrows!!) reminded me of Bergman's "Cries and Whispers". Sorry if that reference is a little pretentious for anyone who thinks that "The Sixth Sense" is the height of horror sophistication!! The connection to Halloween was somewhat tenuous in that particular section but it was laugh out loud funny in parts and it's always good to see an asshole, literally in this case, get his comeuppance. Mother's Day had a suitably 60's hippy drippy tone, Easter was surreal, Father's Day was solemn, creepy and tragic and Christmas was a modern day morality tale of the values of the consumerist society. However for me the stand out was the St Patrick's day section which had a real Ben Wheatley feel and a stand out performance from the scary little girl.

So overall extremely enjoyable for the quality of the overall film and the ability to steer away from most of the clichés that surround the various "Holidays".

Chloe (2009)

A total waste of talent

[3/10 · 24 April 2014]

Good old Hollywood. They've taken the dull and mildly offensive French film "Nathalie" and turned it into something even more conservative and misogynistic.

In "Nathalie" the usually regal "Fanny Ardant" is transformed from a tedious hausfrau into her husband's ideal partner by virtue of a little extra marital sex. In this ridiculously plotted film Hollywood decides to reinforce good old family values by turning the prostitute character, in this case "Chloe" played by Amanda Seyfried, from a conduit to the housewife's sexual awakening into a full blown "Fatal Attraction " type threat to the family unit. As a result, Glenn Close like, the poor girl has to die at the end to allow the happy couple to conclude with a loving embrace. And what sort of a family unit is this? A secretive husband who has no ability to communicate with his wife, a son who is so disrespectful to his mother that he doesn't even answer her and a wife - in this case transformed from housewife to a gynaecologist. This change adds no extra plot depth or subtext but is simply added because obviously nobody in Hollywood films can be unemployed or blue collar and the family needs a high income to be able to afford that stupid house they live in, the one with the windows that push though if you lean on them!

Atom Egoyan must have had a few bills land on his doormat the day he accepted to take on this film. The creator of such gems as "The Sweet Hereafter" and "The Adjuster" his direction on this film is flat and uninteresting. The often wonderful Julianne Moore reverts to hysterical middle class lady and furrowed brow auto pilot mode. Whereas I suspect she may have thought this film was about female sexuality and empowerment it becomes about the nuclear family fighting off the threat to traditional conservative values. Poor old Liam Neeson does his usual Steven Segal impersonation and the unflattering lighting only serves to highlight his dyed hair, which has the texture of a nylon carpet, the pancake make-up and the eye liner. My smart wife described him as more of a lethargio than a Lothario in his performance in this film. When I see Liam I am always reminded of the line in "Tootsie" where Dustin Hoffman talks about his one man show where he performed as vegetables whereas Liam could put on a show performing as household wooden furniture, his oak table would be breathtaking!

Amanda Seyfried gives a very committed performance, obviously seeing this as part of her move to more edgy material such as "Lovelace" and "Jennifer's Body". But in reality none of the family films that she has previously appeared in have ended up being as reactionary as this stinker ultimately proves to be.

The fact that the adaptations to the script are written by a woman , Erin Cressida Wilson, show that class awareness is ultimately more important than gender when it comes to being able to see the truth in the world. Her work on this film has made me re-visit my views on "Secretary", which she also wrote, and I now wonder whether what I thought was a satire is in fact tired old male fantasy fulfillment. Ms Wilson is clearly a LA girl who escaped a life regurgitating cliché amongst American academia to actually become a screen writer, just so long as she played the tiresome Hollywood game.

So a total waste of talent and time.

Going Places (1974)

Only women bleed........

[1/10 · 6 April 2014]

I originally saw this film over 20 years and quite recently I had the misfortune to see it again. What a misogynistic, puerile, lousy excuse for a film it is.

Bertrand Blier wasn't an "enfant terrible" when he made this film he was 35 and so these weren't the rape fantasies of some pathetic teen they represent the fully formed world-view of a man approaching middle age.

At the time of its release the film was something of a cause celebre and to have criticised it I'm sure would have resulted in a person being criticised for having petite bourgeois and reactionary tendencies. Yet it is this film which is extremely reactionary in its treatment and depiction of women. The story concerns the bullying, cowardice, theft, rape, assault, vandalism and petty crime spree of two aimless low life's played by Gerard Depardieu Patrick Dewaere. The main female character, played by Miou Miou, is subjected to slaps, near drowning and rape and discovers that she can only achieve an orgasm herself after providing some young virgin with an orgasm, as if the true source of woman's pleasure is to please men. From there is gets even more offensive. The great Jean Moreau - what on earth is she doing in this garbage? – plays a character who is depicted as a post menopausal woman, grateful for the sexual gratification provided by the two charmless nit wits and who, because she can "no longer bleed", decides to end her life in a final act of bleeding. An act of cheap shock tactics designed to boost Blier's controversial reputation but in reality an act that says that all post menopausal serve no purpose when they can no longer have babies. After all what else are woman for in Blier's sad little mind other than to have babies or be sexually abused? And whilst we are on the subject of babies, let's not forget the scene where the two "heroes" molest a mother who is breast feeding a baby on a train and obviously her response is to be so grateful to the two idiots for abusing her in this way that she becomes lost in a sexual frenzy. What does Blier offer to explain this behaviour? Well obviously it is all the fault of tedious society as depicted, oh so obviously, by some out of season seaside resort.

As for those who claim that the film is funny, well humour is a personal thing and I can find humour in a film like "Man Bites Dog" because of its satirical elements but if you think this is funny then you really must have a very condescending view of the working class and a primitive view of women in general.

I did not find this film offensive because I am a prude and I can fully appreciate the power of controversial films like "Salo" or "Irreversible". But this has none of the technical virtuosity of Noe's film or the political charge of Pasolini. This is just old fashioned and woman hating. Throughout his career Blier continued to peddle this sort of idiotic nonsense, his view of a more enlightened approach to depict women was to provide his female characters with similar roles to those provided to the two male leads in this film. Yes Blier thought that equality for women meant that women could behave just as hideously as his male characters. Fortunately with the passing of time Blier's catalogue, basically the mindless drivel of a man who is scared of women, is now being consigned to the trash can of history where it deserves to be placed. Once thought of as a startling new talent with the passage of time Blier can be seen for the minor talent and even smaller intellect that he truly is.

Inside Llewyn Davis (2013)

Flatter to deceive?

[3/10 · 8 March 2014]

I don't know whether this is a 9 out of 10 star film in which the Coen's stick 2 fingers up to critical awareness or a 3 out of 10 star film in which they stick up the white flag of surrender to critical expectation?

This film is either the Coen Brothers most sarcastic in-joke at the expense of the critics or the film that confirms what some of their detractors have always maintained, that they really can't make genuinely mature and emotional films without resorting to little in jokes and post modernist tropes. As someone who has been an avid follower of the Coen Brothers from "Blood Simple" onwards, who has loved the masterpieces "Fargo", "A Stupid Man" etc, been left indifferent by "Intolerable Cruelty" and "Burn Before Reading" and been appalled by the unwatchable "The Ladykillers" I would like to think that this is some great satirical comedy on the misunderstanding of the artistic process but it could just as easily be a big misjudgment made by people who can only operate at the intellectual level of middle brow critics. Frankly I'm confused by this film.

The lazy critical consensus has presented this film as being essentially about "Losers, likability and luck", the implication being that the character of Llweyn Davis is a misunderstood genius who if only he could connect with people and if only his sense of timing was right could have been Bob Dylan. The reality, at least as I see it in the film, is that he has limited talent, his songs are all fairly derivative and his voice pleasant but anonymous. Music is obviously critical to the film and I think the extract that we hear from Mahler's "Das Lied Von Der Erde", the only non folk music in the film, is key to the Coen's intentions. The extract, I am sure not by coincidence written by a Jewish composer, appears at precisely the point where the lyrics state that "There is no music on Earth that can compare to ours"? Is this the Coen's saying that this is truly beautiful and ethereal music not the music of Llewyn Davis? If it isn't then this is a serious miscalculation because the moment serves to show just how mediocre the folk music in the film is in comparison to the Mahler.

I'd also like to think that the whole cat theme is an enormous joke at the expense of the YouTube piano playing cat generation and that the Coen's are really smart enough to know that people would come up with theories about the cat being the metaphorical presence of Llewyn. I'd also like to think that the sheer predictability of some of the jokes and plot points - who didn't know that second cat was a different cat and a different gender? Who didn't know that the song would be a hit the minute that Llewyn signed away his royalties? Who hadn't made the connection that Llewyn's merchant seaman papers would be in the box he told his sister to place by the curbside? – are also the Coen's playing with audience expectations.

Are the over familiar Coen Brothers characters such as John Goodman's "Roland Turner", an aging and infirm composite of all of his previous Coen Brother's characters, yet another taciturn chain smoking car driver to follow "Gaer Grimsrud" from "Fargo", F Murray Abrahm's "Bud Grossman", yet another sage like deliverer of an anti climactic moment, a comment on the artistic process or a sign that the Coen's really do have to keep repeating themselves?

So far as the casting is concerned Oscar Issac is highly effective in the demanding title role in which he is on screen for virtually every moment. However it is true that he is certainly ideally cast as someone who is not particularly likable as a screen presence whereas you most definitely immediately warm to Justin Timberlake's "Jim". But ultimately is the Coen's real point that under the woolly jumpers these "soulful artists" are so incapable of making genuine gestures that they aren't even capable of throwing themselves off the right bridge when it comes to deciding to commit suicide?

The casting of Carey Mulligan is the real acid test to me of what their real intentions were. So much has been made in articles and features about Ms Mulligans performance, particularly the singing. Yet this amounts to a fairly flat rendition of a single verse of a dull song. Her "Jean" is the girl the men want to "Fuck" but she is presented as a plain girl in a shapeless brown jumper. Her character, as it is written on the face of it, is supposed to be a little atom of misplaced rage, but she is a hypocrite and, as performed, is painfully bloodless and flat. It is not Ms Mulligan's fault that she is so adored by the critical establishment or that she has appeared in overrated and clichéd films such as "Drive" and "Shame" ( where she was supposed to be the self destructive "Yin" to Mr Fassbender's "Yang" but ended up being the whim to his Wang!). It would be unfair to expect someone with her limited life experience and cosseted Hollywood lifestyle to be able to inhabit characters in the way that actresses such as Jean Moreau or Charlotte Rampling, who can bring their own biography to bare in their performances, do. Yet Julianne Moore in films like "Safe" and "Short Cuts", that were relatively early in her career, was able to deliver complex and real people in an absorbing and convincing manner whereas Ms Mulligans is just acting. Ms Mulligan may indeed be delivering what the Coen's wanted but what exactly was that?

The climax of the film for me was the moment when Llewyn's father responded to a "moving" rendition of one of his songs by actually having a bowel movement. Would the Coen's agree? We'll never know.

Time of the Wolf (2003)

Humanity survives.

[8/10 · 20 July 2013]

"Time of the Wolf" is a film that appears to have been overlooked and underrated in the Haneke critical literature. Haneke has described the film as being about "how people treat each other when electricity no longer comes out of the outlet and when water no longer comes out of the faucet". He has also said that it focuses upon "very primal anxieties".

The film takes it title from "Voluspa", an ancient Norse poem which describes Ragnarok, the end of the world. Bergman's "Hour of the Wolf" used the same source for its title. The narrative of the film describes the trials of a mother, Anne, a wonderfully committed performance by Isabelle Huppert and her two children, Eva and Ben, set adrift into a post apocalyptical world where society has broken down.

Anne passes through the film with an unflinching, grim determination to move her family forward, despite witnessing the brutal murder of her husband George (yet another "George and Anne" at the head of a Haneke nuclear family) at the outset of the film. The family move away from the city to seek shelter in their countryside refuge in response to what appears to be the breakdown of society. We learn that uncontaminated water is scarce and at certain moments we see livestock being burned so there would appear to be some form of infection. Fire is to become a very important motif in the film.

Haneke does not dwell on the reason for the "end of the world" because the theme of the film is to question how and why people our humanity makes us cling onto civil society and morals even when all appears to be lost. The cause of the apocalypse is unimportant and what we are left with is a once comfortable urban bourgeois family trying to survive when they are reduced to the level of refugees in Bosnia, a conflict fresh in Haneke's mind when he made this film.

The film is shot in natural light, or perhaps more accurately for most of the film, natural dark! Night time shots leave us reaching desperately into the pitch black night. Ben goes missing from the temporary refuge they find in a barn. The cigarette lighter used by Anne and the torches of straw lit by her daughter as they search for him becoming ever distant tiny points of light against a black canvass, miniscule signs of contact and hope in an enveloping darkness. Until the barn itself becomes ablaze as one of the straw torches ignites the whole. Suddenly what was hope and refuge is a source of fear as too much light could attract danger.

The Laurent family then encounter an unnamed teenage boy, played by Hakim Taleb. Unlike the outsiders who come to aid of the vulnerable in the usual sci-fi post apocalyptic film the boy eventually comes to symbolise a lack of commitment to societal norms, a betrayal of Eva's young ideals and his independence results in the amoral killing of a goat that was used to provide milk.

The family come upon a vestigial community at a railway station. Here there is social order but the community is controlled by a leader Koslowski. Continuing presence in the community relies on the "residents" ability to barter and exchange whatever possessions remain or by the women offering sexual favours. Anne attempts to shield her young some from the brutality of their situation and literally shields Ben from a rape that takes place in their community Accusations against a Polish family of the murder of a farmer are accepted on the word of a guard and yet when during a moment of quiet horror the family who murdered her husband suddenly arrive at the station her accusations are discounted for lack of evidence. In a single parallel moment Haneke shows us the breakdown of a fair system of law and order and of the embedded xenophobia and racism that survives the dystopian future.

Small glimpse of kindness and humanity survive in various gestures amongst the community, a bowl of milk is given for free, civilising classical music is shared on a walkman, entertainment is provided by a man who does magical tricks with razor blades and the void that follows the breakdown of our media driven society is filled by the creation of myths. This is the legend of the 35Just, a group who's mission is to safeguard humanity by self sacrifice in fire. The group are spoken about around camp fires in the night in the same way that myths and legends were passed down in the pre literature era – reinforcing the way that humans revert to primal responses in the face of the uncertainty of their world. The legend of this group climaxes in the powerful and moving scene where Ben, desolate, lost and intoxicated by the mythical tale of the 35Just, strips naked before a fire, again the only light in a pitch black night, and just as he is about to enter the flames he is stopped by one of the guards – un-coincidentally the one at the centre of the previously seen brutal treatment of the Polish family. The guard hugs the boy to him and offers him a vision of optimism.

The film ends on a long tracking shot of a train travelling through the countryside. Has the family been rescued or this is a projection of the hope for the future? Either way, almost uniquely for Haneke, what is an otherwise bleak film appears to end on a note of hope.

A terrifying and un-sensationalized vision of how modern man, without the embellishments of modern day society, quickly reverts to a primeval hierarchy, barter and mythology but that we can saved by the essential humanity that lies within us all.

Greenberg (2010)

Gangrene

[1/10 · 20 July 2013]

This was Baumbach's first poem to his new muse, Greta Gerwig, but it amounts to little more than a predictable romcom plot featuring the sort of tiresome, self-absorbed characters who only actually exist in the world of the tiresome, self-absorbed people who made the film! Noah Baumbach started his directing career promisingly with "The Squid and the Whale" but clearly the elements of humanity/reality that emerge in that film owe more to the semi-autobiographical nature of the film and the selfless, wonderful performances of Jeff Daniels and Laura Linney than they do to Mr Baumbach's incipient talent. Subsequently his films, the charming "Life Aquatic" aside which he co-wrote with Wes Anderson, have become ever more deeply entrenched in the tiresome neurotic middle class world of people that you wouldn't want to spend any time with. Baumbach himself has said that "I always viewed life as material for a movie". That would be fine Noah if you and your life weren't so smug and removed from anything that might be of interest to anyone but you and your circle of friends. Baumbach's new belle, Greta Gerwig, has to date been a fairly anonymous screen persona in big budget movies and a somewhat mannered presence, with her slightly off the beat, faltering way of delivering her dialogue, in the mumblecore movies in which she has built up her reputation. She is apparently unaffected and charming when being interviewed by critics but the "next big thing"? I'm afraid I don't get it! Baumbach's new film "Francis Ha" continues the great romance between Noah and Greta and all that I will say about that much vaunted film is Jean Luc Godard and Anna Karina they are not! I wonder how Jennifer Jason Leigh, Baumbach's previous muse/star/love, and a much more interesting, talented and edgy actress than Gerwig, is finding all of this? So back to "Greenberg". The "hero" of the movie is ex-asylum inmate Roger, played by Ben Stiller. The unpleasant, neurotic gradually falls in love with the sweet, patient, mumbling family P.A. ( yeh we've all got a P.A. haven't we? ). But wouldn't you know it, Roger has a self destructive streak and a horrible personality and yet we know deep down he must be a sensitive soul because hey, he's a carpenter. As this is allegedly a comedy drama various, what I assume are supposed to be amusing, vignettes ensue - I bet Baumbach thought the scenes with the family dog were hilarious! - and the relationship between Florence and Roger evolves. But the structure of the film amounts to little more than a dressed up version of the stereotypical roller coaster romcom narrative until the predictable conclusion arrives. Throughout I couldn't find any redeeming features. The script is awkward, the cinematography flat and lifeless and the score amounts to little more than the standard indie assemblage of sensitive songs. We are first introduced to "Roger" as he looks out of a window and we see the back of head and then suddenly he turns and we have a "wow it's Ben Stiller" moment. I'm not sure what sort of ego you have to have to be introduced into a movie in this way? All that I can say to Mr Stiller is whilst that sort of set up might work in "Once Upon a Time in the West" for an icon like Henry Fonda you Mr Stiller are just that guy who played second fiddle to museum exhibits. What we have here is the equivalent of a home movie about dull, hermetically sealed lives – Baumbach came from the Brooklyn home of a film critic, Stiller's parents are comedy stars – and so what would they know about real life? ( Walt Stillman by the way is even worse!). What Roger needs isn't the love of a good woman it's a good slap! He's not a sad, lost psychologically damaged product of an alienating world he's a product of over indulgence. I don't pity him I pity myself for having to spend time with these people and their tedious "please understand how sensitive I am and just look how difficult it is for me to be me" whining. I'm convinced that the liberal world view of the twerps behind this movie would be that if you are an unpleasant, loud mouthed blue collar guy you are classed as a sociopath but if you are self-hating, human horror like Roger but from the right background then you are essentially a misunderstood, sensitive soul and you need to be loved and sympathised with. I can only assume that these people have inflicted this film upon us because they think there is something of interest or merit in the project, perhaps something about the need for us ordinary little folk to have empathy with all overindulged, damaged upper middle class people, but I can assure them that the film is about as insightful into the human condition as a Micheal Bay film. In the real world people with real lives and real issues haven't got time to collect neuroses, haven't got the ability to live out their latest affairs on screen in multi million dollar projects, and haven't got the arrogance to assume that anyone would be in the slightest bit interested in their tedious lives. Someone should make these people sit down and watch "Cache" by Michael Haneke and then spend a further 6 months studying the various layers of the film, the personal and universal themes, the politics, the history, the humanity contained in that film and then they would realise that compared with someone like Mr Haneke they are not very clever at all. Then who knows, with a bit of humility, a proper education in European cinema (not just bumbling through a viewing of "A Bout de soufflé" and "Bande a part" ) and an enlarged world view they just might gain some understanding into why I dislike this useless film?

A Field in England (2013)

Field of screams

[8/10 · 13 July 2013]

The most satisfying cinema respects the viewer's intelligence and invites them to play an active part in the meaning of the film. The greatest films reward repeated viewings and have universal truths contained within their themes and meaning(s). However, reading some of the reviews of "A Field in England" on IMDb many "reviewers" seem to need all films to adopt the clichéd narrative and formulaic approach of standard Hollywood moron fodder. As a result they have labelled this film as being "self-indulgent", "pretentious", "empty" etc. But perhaps it's the reviewers themselves who do not have an adequate cultural, historical or philosophical knowledge to appreciate the many layers contained in the film and perhaps they don't have the grasp of cinematic language and grammar to understand intelligent cinema? Essentially is it really fair to blame Ben Wheatley for the fact that you are a bit stupid? I didn't find the film pretentious at all. As for the "the meaning of the film", to me this was a metaphor for the failure of the modern day class struggle and the easy triumph of liberal capitalism over working class indifference. O'Neil's alchemy is the 17th century equivalent of the contemporary City/Financial sector – both built on nothing but smoke and mirrors. I think Civil War England was chosen because that was probably the last opportunity that the country had to build a fairer society and the period when the last major challenge to the political orthodoxy was mounted. But the radicals, such as the Diggers and the Levellers, were easily crushed and instead the "revolution" was one that saw the rise of the merchant upper middle class. The digging for treasures in the field demanded by O'Neil is the labour of the poor to make the rich even richer. Was the strange tug of war scene the collective failure of the ordinary men to overcome O'Neil or O'Neil being dragged from the bowels of the earth and carried across the field by the efforts of the men? Ultimately, despite the cries of "I'm my own man" that echo throughout the film, the men are seduced by hallucinogenic mushrooms and the promise of ale at the tavern. They are coerced by threats, violence and the horrors that occur to Whitehead in the tent to a state of total compliance and complicity in their own downfall.

The cinematography by Laurie Rose inventively utilises the limited setting of the field itself to deliver a variety of moods ranging from an innocent golden beauty to mist laden magic hour shimmers through to claustrophobic dread. In a film of many moods, I am surprised that no one has remarked upon how funny Amy Jump's dialogue is at times, much of the humour being earthy enough to challenge any "pretentious" tag. Michael Smiley as O'Neil is a truly sinister screen presence; Reece Shearsmith shifting from obsequious slave to hollow triumphalist, is a chameleon like presence as the mysterious agent of the fable. Richard Ferdinando, unrecognisable from his brilliant performance in "Tony ", is excellent as the everyman character who serves as the eyes of the audience.

Once again Wheatley utilises genre conventions in a fascinating way and delivers a whole that is much more complex and rewarding than the "Witchfinder General on magic mushrooms" reputation that lazy reviewers have applied to this film. What we have is a historical political metaphor that challenges the indifference and compliance of the contemporary working class wrapped up in a hybrid genre horror film that includes humour, magic, good and evil, mystery and some trademark moments of shuddering viscera.

Wheatley is a film maker to watch - perhaps eventually becoming, in his own unique way, England's answer to the equally misunderstood Lars Von Trier? – and in the meantime this remains a rich, strange and evocative film that I will be returning to on many occasions in the future.

Spring Breakers (2012)

Disharmony

[8/10 · 26 May 2013]

"Trash Humpers" and "Mister Lonely" may be relative failures but the wonderful and chronically underrated "Gummo" and "Julien Donkey-Boy" demonstrate that Korine deserves the benefit of doubt when he releases a new film.

Perhaps the typical IMDb "reviewer" doesn't like "Spring Breakers" because they were expecting a T&A experience with the gloss of "cleverness" that Tarantino brings to his compendium-style of film making. Critics love the Tarantino film-reference style of movies because it makes them feel superior. They know that "Bande a part" is a film by Godard and that Tarantino's production company is called A Band Apart - see what he did there? The average cinema-goer likes Tarantino's films because they make them feel smarter than they are. The mirror that Korine holds up to a section of the movie audience makes them look dumber than they are! Korine alienates "serious" critics because he doesn't make moral judgments or use his films for overt didactic purposes. "Sight and Sound" delivered a review in which the reviewer demonstrated a lack of critical objectivity. Pinkerton accused Korine of using Britney Spears songs because he is "an aging infant terrible". Are Korine's use of Skrillex, Cliff Martinez on the soundtrack and the casting of Gucci Mane the actions of someone who is out of touch with "now"? Pinkerton's blinkers prevented him from seeing that Britney is included because she is the trailer-trash, slutty godmother of the consumer driven production line female who is the victim of "Spring Breakers". Britney was the first high profile pop-princess who adopted fetish school girl outfits in "Hit me baby one more time" and if Pinkerton can't see that "I'm not a Girl, Not Yet a Woman" fits with the themes of the film he should take up another career. Pinkerton accuses Korine and Franco of serving up a "put on" because of the knowing elements in the dialog but in a film by some art-house darling this same stylization would have been described as functioning as a Brechtian "alienation effect"! What Korine has done with "Spring Breakers" is hold up a mirror to society in the same way that his mentors Werner Herzog and Larry Clark do. Korine uses this mirror to show the constant media-stream in your head of consume/conform, the diet of hip-hop videos, objectified women and a reality that is transformed morally by "Grand Theft Auto". He presents a reality where all that working class teen-women in the post-industrial era can aspire to is to be a sex object, where the purpose of life is, as Franco/Alien outlines in his classic scene, to accumulate more "shit".

Korine's casting of Disney/HSM/TV teen icons is a comment on the wholesale sexualization of females, even in what were previously bastions of wholesome good taste. There is little actual sexual activity included in the film and what we have is the visual stimulation, the display. The fast food-heist scene distanced through plate-glass, Rachel Korine semi-naked with the group of men, the intimidating pool-hall etc do not fulfill audience anticipation of sex and violence. The mirror Korine holds up says you want your instant gratification. The reality of what the girls have done in robbing the fast-food diner is only made real to Faith when the girls re-enact the attack on her. Behaving, as they say they need to, like characters in a movie, like characters in a video game.

Faith ( no coincidence in that name!) played by Selena Gomez is the first to leave the group because she has a family that supports an opposite world-view to "money, guns and bitches" and is the only one who appears to have the possibility of a college career and success.

Cotty/Rachel Korine is the one who initially buys into the lifestyle with the most eagerness but reality bites in the shape of a bullet and she leaves. The two girls who become acolytes of Alien, who want Spring Break to last forever, who want all of the "shit" for themselves play the first half of the film in an understated manner but the life without limits starts to increasingly seduce them until they are assimilated into the Springbreak "dream". Vanessa Hudgens, developing a feral sexuality as the film evolves and Ashley Benson acting like someone who has found her purpose in life, shape-shift from ordinary high school girls to bikini clad assassins, buying into Alien's world-view in the same way that Charlie Manson's girls carried out his murders, but this time not to spread fear amongst those with the consumer "shit" but to take the "shit" from them.

The mesmerizing soft edged semi-drug induced tone of the film reduces resistance and the repetition of dialog acts as a symbol of the insidious whisper in the girls heads that the media constantly sends out. This theme is reinforced by the brilliant device of the phone-calls home the girls make. Reassuring their parents that they are having a "great time" with "wonderful people" and what a "dream" the whole thing is. We don't hear the parents on the other end of the line, simply girls repeating lines incantation-like, deluding themselves about this "magical" "paradise", where girls are measured by the size of their T&A and men by the size of their assault weapons! The jump cuts and fragmented editing serve to show the contrast between the reality and the fantasy, the loss of time and space and the desire to make the immediate now, forever. The dream meets the ultimate reality in the neon lit night-time hit on Archie and his gang, played out like the best video game you've ever seen and leaving game designers everywhere thinking "why didn't I think of having two foxy girls in day-glow bikinis and ski masks as the main protagonists in my game". Laura Croft meets Rihanna for the no attention span generation.

Ultimately who wins? Is it the girls themselves who "win", driving away in the ultimate expression of impractical consumer "shit" or is it consumerism itself?

The Wicker Tree (2011)

Tragically bad.

[1/10 · 4 May 2012]

A horrible abomination of a film. I had very low expectations for this film but this is much worse than I ever thought it could possibly be. In fact, in its own way, it is one of the very worst films I have ever seen.

I appreciate that Robin Hardy is now an old gentleman and his faculties must be somewhat impaired but how could he agree to decimate the legacy that he built up with the original "Wicker Man" by producing this mess? ( yes I know really, it was the money! ) The narrative is a garbled piece of nonsense and the film seems to move forward as if it was assembled from 4 or 5 different stories. The motivations of the characters make no sense. For example two young American evangelists go on a high profile visit to Scotland, including media interviews etc, but very quickly allow themselves to completely change their schedule and go to some sleepy rural village. The Leader of the Cult isn't even convinced of what his group are doing but still blunders ahead with murders etc. The young male evangelist has a vow of celibacy but a quick glimpse of local lady "Lolly" ( about whom there is much more to follow) displaying her thimble chested form in a river and 3 minutes later he has committed the evil deed with her. The pagan group ( who look like a bunch of middle class chumps straight from the Glastonbury Festival ) wander away for the main female character "Beth Boothby" completely ignoring the fact that they have captured her and yet 5 minutes later they are ensnaring her again for their rite. Promising characters, such as "Lady Delia Morrison", wander in and out of the film and appear to serve no purpose and are omitted from scenes in which they would be expected to appear The acting is truly, truly awful. Whereas in the original "Wicker Man" the female temptation to Edward Woodward's Christian innocent was provided by beautiful, ripe, alluring beauties such as Britt Ekland, Ingrid Pitt and Diane Cilento the temptress in this film, "Lolly", is played by a minor TV actress who rejoices in the name Honeysuckle Weeks, and who looks like a not very convincing gender reassignment case. I'm afraid she would certainly tempt no-one from the path of celibacy! Her delivery of her dialogue is so bad that at one stage they have to subtitle the girl even though she is speaking English! Clive Russell as "Beame" does his usual comedy relief but his character and performance is completely out of keeping with the tone of the rest of the film. Poor Christopher Lee turns up in flashback acting opposite some ugly kid who must be the son of one of the producers because the stilted delivery of his dialogue is sub primary school play standard. The two American evangelists are flat and dull too. Henry Garrett as cowboy Steve has the charisma of a cardboard box and Britannia Nichol as "Beth Boothby", looks a bit like Katie Holmes in a blond wig and a comedy pig nose and changes her characterisation from scene to scene. Poor kids must have thought this was their big break! The photography is horrible. The light keeps changing throughout individual scenes so that we go from morning to early evening light in about a minute. At certain points it appears that some sort of filter is being used but it could just be that the camera is out of focus.

The magic and wonder of the original "Wicker Man" came from a genuinely convincing creation of a rural pagan world. The setting of the original, on an island as opposed to some anonymous border village as in this film, served to reinforce the plausibility of such a world existing. However in this film it is never explained why this one village has evolved in this way compared with neighbouring villages? The appearance of the "Wicker Man" at the end of that film was a truly horrifying event, but one that is entirely consistent with where the narrative of the story leads. However "the Wicker Tree" itself serves absolutely no purpose in the film other than to provide a ridiculous twist featuring the Sir Lachlan Morrison character. What was the purpose of the "Wicker Tree"? The viewer is left with no idea at all other than to assume that it was just stuck in there as an afterthought to try and create some sort of link with the original film.

The "shocking" conclusion of the film sees Beth Boothby reduced to a wax works display and fully on view. Which Pagan tradition features turning sacrifices into wax works statues? What did the creation of a wax work dummy from the May Queen achieve? The offering of Edward Woodward to the Wicker Man in the first film was entirely consistent and plausible within the traditions and situation created. And honestly, if you had murdered a high profile visitor would you put them on display as a wax works model? In this film the end was simply a horribly stupid conceit that made no sense whatsoever.

The film ends up looking like it had been conceived in 37 seconds by a bunch of film executive dummies in suits rather than 37 years in the making by the creator of the original "Wicker Man". I see that they are trying to present it as a "black comedy" and Robin Hardy has said that "it's okay to laugh". Well it's okay to laugh WITH a film but surely not AT a film! Extremely poor and ultimately very sad.

Inception (2010)

Deception?

[2/10 · 21 December 2011]

"Inception" is nothing more than a stupid, high-concept movie with an ideal target audience of geeky 14 year old boys who have little interest in the opposite sex. It's hard to believe therefore that this film has an average IMDb rating of 8.9 and has received such ecstatic levels of praise on this site.

So, why don't I think that it is any good? Firstly, what is it "about"? What are it's themes? Genuinely great contemporary film makers of the rational world , such as Michael Haneke, explore the fundamental elements of human experience and modern society. Haneke has explored the failure of communication, the influence of media, the difficulties of multi-culteralism, the survival of humanity and culture, the impact of violence etc etc. In comparison "Inception" has no themes or original ideas. The most interesting visual moments are lifted from a variety of sources ranging from "2001" to James Bond. The basic narrative consists of the struggle to make one huge corporation slightly bigger than another. Where is the human element in that? Where are the morals? Where is the redemption? The Capitalist system is helping the extremely rich get richer – the wealth of the richest 1% has doubled over the last 10 years – but do ordinary office workers and blue collars workers, who are getting screwed by the system, care whether one faceless giant corporation overcomes another? Where is the drama when you don't care about the outcome and don't care about the characters? It's a film that has no philosophical or human dimension. Indeed the treatment of the "Mal" character and the failure to have her impose some sense of human or emotional responsibility on the Cobb character show the film to actually be as morally bankrupt as the casino bankers. Human emotion and relationships are overlooked by boys who are in thrall to their CGI toys.

Does it achieve what it sets out to deliver so far as atmosphere and tone are concerned? That great modern film maker of the subconscious world, David Lynch, has shown us that Cinema can show the dreams and nightmares of the human psyche, can show the "other world" that lives just below the tangible surface. But "Inception" use of dream states and the "dream within a dream" is extremely mundane. Comparing a work of genius, such as "Mulholland Drive", with this pedestrian fantasy demonstrates what a failure in atmosphere there is in this film. "Inception" is also completely lacking in sex. How can you have a film about dream states and the subconscious that is as flat and banal as this? Perhaps Christopher Nolan isn't comfortable in exploring this area? That might explain why he has agreed to cast Anne Hathaway, surely one of the least sexy leading ladies in modern cinema ( unless you get excited by the 11 year old/"Bambi" look ) as sex icon Catwoman in his upcoming "The Dark Knight Rises". You just know all of the curves on this Catwoman are going to be part of the suit and as fake as the "philosophy" in "Inception"! I've enjoyed several of Nolan's earlier films and I think "Memento" in particular is a fascinating film and a film that actually DOES have themes - of identity, memory and guilt. However, I think his move into the world of "intelligent Blockbusters" ( as if there can be such a thing!? ) have made him lose his way.

The cast are uniformly flat in their performances. Some excellent performers such as Cillian Murphy, Marion Cotillard, Pete Postlethwaite etc are wasted in underdeveloped roles. At the core of the film is the perpetually furrowed brow and dead eyes of Leonardo Di Crapio. Indeed, one of the great mysteries of the modern cinema age is what, once great, filmmaker Martin Scorsese sees in this rubber faced, bland, not particularly intelligent presence. That's not to say that great sci-fi can't be made with a not very bright leading man. The first "Matrix" film is a wonderful film despite the somewhat befuddled presence of Keanu. But it is a great film because it has ideas, human drama, personal politics and the subtext that "Inception" lacks.

The pacing throughout "Inception" is turgid, oh how I waited and waited for that white van to fall, and the po-faced self importance of the whole thing is laughable.

Now that the big corporations own the studios, the distribution and the cinemas the films that get force fed to the public are decided by air heads in suits. As a result the average audience's exposure to intelligent cinema is in serious decline. It's a shame that an essentially vacuous piece of escapism like "Inception" is being spoken of as being an intelligent piece of film making because if this is the future of "intelligent" cinema then, ladies and gentlemen, cinema is dead.

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939)

One big plot hole?

[28 August 2011]

Far be if from me to criticise such a historically important film. "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" garnered a great deal of critical and public acclaim and received 11 Oscar nominations. It's contemporary significance can be demonstrated by the fact that when the Nazi's in occupied France banned the showing of Hollywood films several French cinemas chose this film as the last one they screened, one for 30 consecutive nights, to act as a lasting beacon for democracy. The film also commented upon corruption in states such as Montana at the time. It's timelessness can easily be demonstrated by the current echoes that the film has with the activities of the Murdoch media empire, their ability to exert major political influence and the ability to subvert public opinion by distorted coverage in the Murdoch press and in his TV empire via channels such as Fox News. The film is another example of Capra's little man against the big machine and it is strange that this consistent theme comes from Capra and Stewart who were both avowed Republicans. The performance by James Stewart was star making but is somewhat histrionic for my taste. However his commitment to the role can be demonstrated by the fact that he took various concoctions to actually give him a very sore throat for the scenes at the end of his "fillybustering". Jean Arthur's character and the relationship with Mr Smith seems somewhat unconvincing and some of the humour, such as the drunken scene, seems heavy handed and unsubtle. That is unless you are a fan of such modern starlets as Jeniifer Aniston,then you'll think that characterisation in broad strokes and via a few forced expressions is fine. The supporting cast is wonderful, particularly Claude Rains, but his final dramatic change of heart is unconvincing and is one aspect of the film that won't translate to a modern audience who are used to their politicians being bought and paid for, professional party line hacks. Capra has an ability to deal with big themes through the struggle of a single man and that is his genius. This film is no exception and the United States Film Regulatory board has nominated the film as one that is "culturally, historically or aesthetically significant". So why doesn't it work for me? Because I just can't get over the big hole in the plot. If Mr Smith is disgraced because they produce false papers saying he owns the land on which the dam is to be built why doesn't he simply say if I own the land then there won't be a dam and I'll build my Boy Rangers camp there after all. And if Mr Smith does have documents showing that he owns the land how could the evil Jim Taylor then plan to go ahead and build the dam on the land? The film has all of the great themes of anti corruption and stands up for the little man, the benefits of democracy, truth and redemption and a has a dramatic and positive final outcome. However the central narrative thread is flawed and so the drama in the Senate seems a bit hollow to me when a bit of smart thinking by Mr Smith could have saved him 23 plus hours on his feet and a very sore throat.

Fish Tank (2009)

Fish stank?

[15 August 2011]

I wanted to enjoy this film because I get tired of the British film industry focusing almost exclusively upon the upper middle classes. However I'm afraid I found much about the project very clichéd. I am a Job Centre manager in an inner city area and so I am used to dealing with desperate and angry people. Unlike some of the middle class reviewers for whom this would have been a rare glimpse into a stereotypical council estate world that would have confirmed all of their prejudices. I thought the symbolism - the tethered white horse, the gasping fish and the way the electricity pylons disappeared as the lovely Mr Fassbender took them into the country side - was heavy handed. The symbolism failed because Mia actually gained no release from her circumstances. I also fail to detect the redemption that some of the reviewers find in a conclusion that see's the main character driving off to Wales with a gypsy in a wonky old Volvo. Have these people never been to Wales??? I am perplexed by Michael Fassbdner's strong desire to be involved in the film. I like Mr Fassbender but his Irish accent was about as far removed from an Irish accent as I have heard portrayed in a film ( but then Dick Van Dyke never did play an Irish man ) and I am not sure what he found so rewarding in playing a character who to mind my mind was no better than a pedophile and a groomer! The ability to dance was obviously a metaphor for how Mia could escape her circumstances. However, from a practical point of view Mia's attempts at street dance would have been somewhat laughable to any genuine street dancers who had viewed the film. And again the symbolism around dancing - the mum who could dance but had not taken her opportunities, the fact that the only dance audition available was as a lap dancer, the concluding dance with her Mum and her sister ( this after her Mum had already told her to f~~k of!??) was somewhat forced. The one strong scene for me was where Mia's young sister was thrown into the sea and I am not sure that the well being of the young girl playing the character was always at the forefront of the filmmakers minds. However certainly young Rebecca Griffiths, as Mia's sister Tyler, gave the sparkiest and most complex performance in the entire film. Overall, I'm sorry but I was disappointed.