Plane sailing

Up in the Air (2009)

This is a “comedy-drama” that walks the dangerous path between romantic comedy and self righteous message movie but luckily manages to avoid becoming either. George Clooney plays George Clooney going round the country as a hired gun that fires people when another company is down sizing and they do not want to do the firing themselves, living a lonely life because he does not want to let anyone get “close to him”.

As I alluded to earlier what this film does well is manage not to fall into the pit falls of being a formulaic romantic comedy or try to bash the audience over the head with some half baked philosophy. There are a few decent laughs along the way but it is not what you would call a riotous comedy. What I especially liked was that we do not get the predictable ending even if it does seem that the events have changed Clooney's character slightly.

3/5, definitely watch-able.

No joke

The Dark Knight (2008)

I am going to end this mini season with the sequel to Christopher Nolan's reboot of the Batman franchise. After the success of Batman Begins (2005) and the return of the same creative team things always looked good for The Dark Knight and the inclusion of the Joker as the main villain further increased the potential. When it comes to Batman the most iconic villain in his rogues gallery really is the Joker and he offers a wealth of opportunities for any writer or film maker to explore, which is not to say that the Joker guarantees a good Batman story as like anything I am sure the Joker can be badly used.

Heath Ledger got an Oscar for his portrayal of the Joker and it really is an impressive performance as his character comes to dominate not just the plot but also the film. Using the Joker as a metaphor for anarchy and terror, specifically the war on terror, we get a really good film here not just the best Batman film to date. It is also nice to see a film that manages to look at the difference sides of the debate on how the war on terror is handled without smashing the viewer on the head with the creators own political bias. There are also some tough ethical dilemmas for the characters of the film to have to deal with.

The opening heist sequence is an excellent start and all the stunt/effects sequences are very well done with the emphasis being on real world stunts enhanced by CGI rather than relying heavily on CGI. What criticism I do have of the film is that it might be slightly too long and while it is a good film I do not think there is enough about it for it to be considered a great film. 4/5

Levelling

Inception (2010)

Inception is a logical progression of Nolan's work with hints of his earlier film Memento filtered through the Matrix. What Inception is really about is the nature of reality, dreams, loss, guilt and addiction. In the world of Inception people can share dreams and do so in this instance to facilitate corporate espionage.

Amongst the things that Inception has in common with Memento are not just some of the themes it explores but also a great story combined with a well executed and unusual narrative technique and a craftily conceived puzzle underpinning it all. The story revolves around Cobb trying to get back to the US to see his children and his guilt over the death of his wife, it is well written and acted. There are some stunning visual sequences involving the dream worlds and the final heist which plays out on multiple levels is a genius conception with amazing, tense execution.

It is hard to find anything wrong with this film and it leaves enough ambiguity with it's conclusion to give the audience room to think for themselves without being confused by what happened. This is another 5/5 from Christopher Nolan, outstanding from concept to completion.

Snap shots

Memento (2000)

I am going to kick off a Christopher Nolan mini season with the first of his films that I ever saw and possibly the hardest to review without ruining it for the audience. What is great about this film is not that you can watch it more than once but that you need to watch it at least twice and it achieves this without the second viewing being driven by the fact that you found the first viewing so confusing or undecipherable.

Guy Pearce plays a man looking for his wife's killer but hindered by his “condition” in this psychological thriller. While the film uses a non linear narrative it is not just a gimmick and the sole point of the film. The plot and themes of the movie are really interesting, the way the puzzling narrative is put together is very clever and holds up and there are some good performances from all the cast that really capture a great tone for the film.

I am not going to say much more about Memento other than to suggest that if you have not already seen it then you should do so without reading any more about it. 5/5

Donkey

Shrek Forever After (2010)

This is the kind of family orientated film you end up getting stuck watching during the festive period and you have to wonder if we really need another Shrek film at all. When you get to the fourth instalment of a series you are in serious danger of being accused of just milking the franchise. Obviously they are starting to run out of ideas on where to go here, the first Shrek film was not only funny but a fresh take on the whole idea of fairy tales and kids stories but this is just basically a rip off of It's a Wonderful Life (1946).

There are a few laughs along the way of a simplistic plot and the usual ramming home of “family values” but the good jokes are not really numerous enough to raise this beyond mediocrity. If you are a Shrek fan then there is enough here to make this watch-able otherwise I would not go seeking it out. 3/5

Tails

Fantastic Mr Fox (2009)

Roald Dahl's book is adapted for the screen here using stop motion animation by Wes Anderson. I have read the book version when I was a child and there are some changes but I could not be certain how much and how many so it is hard to compare the film to the original. There is an obvious shift to making the narrative more focused on family relations as seems to be the trend these days but it still retains an excellent sense of fun, mostly at the expense of the three human farmers.

George Clooney is really well cast voicing the title character but Bill Murray seems completely wasted as Clive Badger. Clearly this is a children's film but there is enough jokes and silliness in there for us big kids too. I am not really sure about the choice of using stop motion over CGI or normal animation as some of the characters facial expressions do not seem to translate that well but other than that it works fine for majority of the movie.

If you have to find something family friendly to watch this is a good pick and I would give it a 4/5.

Blue

Avatar (2009)

This film mega killed at the box office but has left me some what confused. Even though I did not see a 3D version Avatar still has some amazing visuals which are achieved via really good CGI (as opposed to some of the lazy and weak CGI floating around some block busters). Motion capture technology has also been pushed to new levels as well as presumably the 3D technology but is there more to the film than pushing technological boundaries?

The plot is problematic. From the very start it is hard to take seriously a story featuring a MacGuffin call Unobtainium. It would have been really interesting to see some further exploration of the idea of people using avatars and the merging or loss of identity from this but that is pretty much ignored. There are also some weak characters such as the Colonel who wants to be evil and blow stuff up with out any real explanation or motivation. As the plot progresses you realise what you have here is processed cheese, entirely predictable and lacking any depth of flavour. If at any point you can not work out what is going to happen next you have probably never read a book or seen a film before. Now if the film had ended with the destruction of the natives homes it would have been really awesome in an Empire Strikes Back dark ending kind of a way.

From the weak plot it does get worse, there seems to be some latent racism sneaking through which includes the stereotypical natives and the fact that only the white man can save them. Then we have the major problem of the film's message. Billed as the most technologically advanced film of all time we get the paradox of being smashed over the head with luddite views while watching it. Why not spend the best part of $250million on computers, machinery, flying people around the world and a whole bunch of other stuff to tell us that it is all bad and we should go live in the trees?

It really is hard to score this movie because despite all it's many and varied flaws it is not as bad as it should be. There is just enough there in the stunning visuals and predictability to keep it a watch-able 3/5 but I am really not sure how.

Predetermined

The Time Traveller’s Wife (2009)

I think it was British actress Maggie Smith that called method acting emotional masturbation, well that is essentially what this film is. The plot centres round creating as many cheap emotional payoffs as possible thanks to the time travelling husband, by doing this it ends up being fairly predictable and uninteresting. Time travel can be a vast and complex subject but is relegated to being an unexplored plot device in this instance.

There is a fairly decent cast and the direction is fine but other than that I do not think that this film has a huge amount going for it. I am sure this type of movie has it's fans but for a lot of people it will be seen as a middle of the road movie of the type that you have probably seen 5 or 6 times before. Twelve Monkeys does this story so much better and more thought provokingly.

3/5

Ambling

The Other Boleyn Girl (2008)

This film is what Hollywood likes to do with history, not look at actual history and not explore potentially fleshed out alternate histories but mess with a historic basis to try and tell an entertaining story instead. It is hard to say much in favour of the plot, it is distorted history and has holes such as Mary Boleyn's first husband randomly disappearing never to be heard from again.

You would think that by casting Natalie Portman, Scarlett Johansson and Eric Bana in a film that you could not go wrong but when it is a film about historic British figures it does feel like a let down that we could not even get one British actor or actress in there when there are a few decent ones kicking about.

While it is hard to say much in favour of the film it is also fairly hard to say that it is a bad film either so I give it a middle of the road 3/5, probably best suited to teenage girls.

Ooh Ah, Ooh Ah, Ooh Ah

Looking for Eric (2009)

Ken Loach is one of the few British film makers about, unfortunately he is pretty far left leaning and that can make some of his stuff pretty tiresome. In this instance however Loach manages to stay clear of his politics (mostly) and stick to the subject of how football can affect people.

Eric Cantona was a great player, not because he was the best of all time but because he had a mystique about him as well as his ability. This film does a good job of capturing the essence of Cantona as well as providing a cameo of the current politics over the ownership of the club at Manchester United. The actual plot is about a postman whose life is falling apart around him, his step sons cause him no end of problems, he has to come face to face with the first ex-wife that he walked out on and he suffers from panic attacks. While there is a lot going on in the plot it is not especially interesting other than framing how following a sports team can have a positive affect on an individuals life.

It may be because I am a United fan but I give this a 4/5.

Repeats

Return of the Seven (1966)

Oh how the mighty magnificent have fallen.

With sequels you have to worry that what you are about to see is someone just cashing in on a previous box office success rather than trying to tell a good story. Unfortunately this is a clear case of the cash ins. Yul Brynner is the only returning cast member for what is essentially a sub par rehash.

Without the excellent cast and interesting characters of the original there is not much left to like about this film. Bandits come and kidnap all the male villagers to make them work on rebuilding a church and then Brynner and chums ride in to have some gun fights. Gun fighters being recruited by dredging the local prison in an early scene is an apt metaphor for the writing process of this film.

2/5, just say no to pointless sequels kids.

Aiming for the horse

The Magnificent Seven (1960)

For a western this movie has a number of unusual elements. It is one of the first American films to be heavily influenced by the work of Akira Kurosawa, in this instance a remake of Seven Samurai transplanted into the old west. In general films in the western genre are often about the individual as a loner or outsider, usually in conflict against the majority such as in High Noon or Shane. As hinted in the film's title this film is more about the group or community and as such it actually did really good business in the Soviet Union.

John Sturges directs Yul Brynner and a cast that includes what was a number of young up and coming actors at the time such as Steve McQueen, Charles Bronson, James Coburn and Robert Vaughn. The plot is fairly basic, bandits are harassing a Mexican village and representatives are sent north of the border to buy guns and hire men to protect the village. What the film does well is it's portrayal of the hired guns, these gun men are not romanticised chivalric knights of the west nor cynical anti heroes but somewhere in between. Good performances from the cast, epsecially Brynner and (for the most part) interesting back stories elevate this above a run of the mill western.

Unfortunately the film does seem a little dated, the famous theme music is a bit over bearing to modern ears and the plot is a little simplistic but over all I still give it a 5/5.

Take away

The Fourth Kind (2009)

Milla Jovovich stars in this horror movie about alien abduction that claims to be based on “real events” and to include “real interview” footage as well as some “real police video”. The reality is that the film relies on cheap lies to try and get easy scares. It is not based on real events and all the supposedly real footage is fake, with coincidental holes in the recordings when something involving the aliens is supposed to happen.

What could have been an interesting premise, is the central character a reliable witness or is she going nuts, is completely trodden over with the ham fisted attempts at shocking the audience. I also think that there is some room for exploration of the idea of faux reality in fiction and the possibilities of viral marketing but this is not a good example.

2/5 from me, any random x-files rerun is probably worth watching over this.

Wrong turn at the dvd aisle

Wrong Turn at Tahoe (2009)

I wish I had known this was a direct to DVD release before I had seen it, then I could have saved myself 90 minutes. Tahoe is essentially a bad Tarantino knock off that some how got Cuba Gooding jr. and Harvey Keitel to be in it. Harvey Keitel actually seems really old now.

There is about one good scene in this film when Joshua and Vincent confront Mickey about his lie but other than that there is very little to like. All attempts and witty or clever dialogue fall flat on it's face and the characters are really not that interesting or explored very well.

I give this a 2/5

Bronson

Death Wish (1974)

Charles Bronson plays a liberal architect whose wife is killed and his daughter assaulted and he then goes on a killing spree (after a short working holiday). While this film was supposedly very shocking when released there really does not appear to be much to it now. Vigilantism can be a really interesting subject but the script for Death Wish is not interested in moral complexities, just shooting some muggers.

Because the movie is so basic it is hard to find a lot to say about it. Charles Bronson is not the sort of actor with a lot of depth to his performances either which does not really help matters here, he does not seem to care that his wife is killed. The film does enough not to be boring but other than that I can not find much to praise it on.

I give this a 3/5.

Who is watching?

Watchmen (2009)

Adaptations are always a sticky subject. When, if ever is it alright to deviate or change the source material you are working from? Do we just want to see a moving version of a book/comic or do we want to see a visual interpretation of it? There are some adaptations like starship troopers which have pretty weak links to their source material but there are others where the new medium and changes made end up having greater depth than their source material such as The Guns of Navarone. I am not sure there is any real answer to this other than you have to judge the finished product and see if it retains the feeling and themes of the source material and is an entertaining film or not.

Various people have labelled Watchmen as unfilmable and original creator Alan Moore is especially hostile to adaptations that take liberties with his work following past run ins with Hollywood. In this instance the film makers have stayed largely faithful to Moore's original work but have made some slight changes to make the film more "contemporary" with energy issues being included as a motivator for the "bad" guys. I am not really sure this is either necessary or improves the film in anyway, if anything maybe it makes the plot a little more specific than general in allegory which is not a good thing in my opinion. What the adaptation does do well is retain the moral ambiguity of the original when I am sure there was a temptation by some people to turn complex anti heroes into heroes.

Going with a largely unknown cast is definitely a bold step but pays off well with good performances all round. The direction is solid, even if it owes a lot to the original art of the comic. Special effects in the film are good and the sets and costumes retain the atmosphere of the comic well. Action and plot keep the movie ticking along nicely and it does not run into pacing problems with a 3 hour run time.

Over all everything fits together very nicely (especially the soundtrack) but nothing is overwhelmingly good so I give Watchmen a 4/5.

Back stabbing

Once upon a time in America (1984)

In my last blog I talked about studio executives not going nuts and leaving Airplane! uncut, well on it's state side release the opposite happened for Sergio Leone's final film. When Leone's final cut came in at over 3 hours long the studio panicked and went on an manic cutting spree. The film's narrative relies heavily on it's flash back sequence to make sense so when the movie was cut down to a 2 hour run time and the remaining scenes were shown in chronological order the film bombed. One critic is said to have called the studio cut the worst film of the 80s and the directors cut the best film of the 80s.

The film centres on the story of a young group of hoodlums in their childhood and exploits during the prohibition era from the point of view of the gang member that betrays the others. As with many crime stories this is a tale of friendship, betrayal and the destructive nature of greed (a common theme in Leone's works). Despite the long run time the film does not drag and there is another excellent and haunting score from Ennio Morricone. There are some good performances from the cast which includes Robert De Niro and a very young Jennifer Connelly.

While this is a very good film it falls short of being a great film as it lacks the stand out cinematography as well as the tension and atmosphere of Leone's other work. What in America does have is a mysterious nature to it's plot that it manages to maintain well until the final moments and does not bash the audience over the head with a solution.

I give it a 4/5

Shirely

Airplane! (1980)

The 70s saw the growth of the disaster movie genre but Airplane! has come to over shadow many of the films it is spoofing. Interestingly Airplane! did really badly in what Hollywood likes to call it's "test screening" process. Basically a bunch of random people give scores on a film and do focus group work, then studio execuatives that financed the film panic based on those responses and try to wrestle control of the film away from the creative team behind it and try to recut it so as to save themselves. Luckly for us in this case the film was released as is despite it's poor test results. It seems that no one wanted to admit to liking the level of humour in Airplane! but then told all thier friends to go and see it. You would think that Hollywood might learn from such a great success coming from poor testing but apparently they have not.

There are some classic jokes in this film and great performances from the cast. What Airplane! does well is stay on topic. That might seem strange to say but the problem a lot of spoofs seem to have is that they do not work as a whole movie because there is not enough material to sustain the full run time. There are a number of spoof films that come across as a load of sketches loosely stuck together to pad out a weak plot. We have one spoofish aside in Airplane! but other than that it sticks to the main thrust of disaster film wackyness. Some jokes may come across as offensive and juvenille, and they probably are, but they are still funny and come in at a fast enough pace to keep the film going.

I give Airplane! a 4/5

dot, dot, dot, dash

The Longest Day (1962)

This is film would never get made today. There is a lot more you can say about The Longest Day but the crux of the matter is that it is a film making achievement that could not be rivalled in the modern era. No one would even think of making a film like this that was internationally inclusive (although the Canadians are sadly missing from the film), with such an amazing cast (Wayne, Fonda, Mitchum, Connery & Burton to name a few) and also stick to the actual story of the events in question rather than shoe horn in a love story and focus on a fictional protagonist (I am looking at you Michael Bay).

While there may not be a sequence that can rival the opening of Saving Private Ryan for depicting the initial assault on the Normandy beaches there are a great number of excellent action scenes, the best of which has to be the long sequence of the French attack on the casino. Characters from all sides, ranks and nationalities provide us with a great over view of the situation in the build up to and the opening day of the Allied invasion of northern France.

This is one of the few examples when Hollywood has got telling history right. Stick to the facts and do not crow bar in some clichéd melodramatic rubbish to try and appeal to a wider audience. Weighing in at over 3 hours The Longest Day manages not to get bogged down or start to drag thanks to the wealth of characters and stories to tell, it also manages to have so many characters without becoming confusing as to who is who or what is going on.

I give this a 5/5 an epic in every sense of the word and it stands the test of time very well. 

Following orders

The White Ribbon (2009)

This German language film is set in a northern German village in the year leading up to the out break of the first world war. The story is narrated by the village school teacher many years later as he goes over his memories of the strange events that happen during the period leading up to the out break of war.

What the film is really about is authoritarianism and the affects it has on the community. The unpopular baron rules the village with the help of his steward, the doctor and the pastor while various acts of rebellion or terrorism occur against them. It is hard not to view the plot as foreshadowing what happens in Germany following the loss of the first world war, particularly the punishment of the weak and vulnerable in response to the crimes of the previous generation. There are also denunciations and cover ups as the villages try to get to the bottom of the strange series of events.

Shooting in black and white to emphasise the strict code of right and wrong on the surface of the village life is an interesting choice but I do not think it adds a great deal to the look of the film. Where the film falls down is that it is fairly slow and there is no real conclusion to the story in my opinion.

This is still a good film, if shocking at times and I give it a 4/5

Beastly

The Wolfman (2010)

Benicio del Toro stars in this remake of the 1941 monster horror movie of the same name. I have not seen the original but this film does a great job of capturing the atmosphere of Gothic horror literature. Lawrence Talbot, an actor, returns to his fathers country estate following the disappearance and death of his brother to find out what happened for his brothers finance.

There is certainly a lot to like about this film in terms of the way it really captures the feel of the genre with it's great locations and touching on the themes of insanity and “the beast with in” but I do feel it ends up falling short. It neither explores the themes deeply enough to be a thoughtful horror film and it isn't scary enough to be a scary horror film.

I am also not entirely sure that the plot fits together that well, the explanation for the cause of the original killings seems to be an after thought and I was no convinced about the relationship between Lawrence and Gwen. It is a real shame because there is a lot of potential here in terms of the subject matter and the cast which also includes Emily Blunt, Anthony Hopkins and Hugo Weaving. The actual animation of the wolfman when it is attacking people does not seem that convincing either.

In the end despite the good parts I think I have to give this film a 3/5, a real missed opportunity but not a bad watch.

McTrek

Star Trek (2009)

Oh dear.

I will start by saying that I am not a massive trek fan, I have seen all the films and watched a fair amount of the TV shows when I was younger but that is as far as it goes. Having said that it is very hard to watch this reboot without reference to the previous cannon. Where I would say trek was at it's strongest was the original cast films, specifically 2-4 and 6 (so mostly the ones Nicholas Meyer had a hand in but not exclusively). For me those films really encapsulate the tone and style of trek, some depth of theme, good drama and some nice character work.

After watching the reboot I really think this film has brought out the worst in Hollywood. The whole premise is that an alternate reality is created so events and characters can be different but really that seems completely counter to the idea of making a new series with existing characters if they are not going to be the same characters we already know. What we end up with is a really bland “action adventure” in space which is just cashing in on the trek name. The plot has no thematic depth to it like any of the best trek films and actually has very little going for it.

Karl Urban's performance seems especially strange with McCoy's accent appearing and disappearing very erratically. The main big space battle is just a CGI spamfest with no tension or ability to work out what is going on. About the only part I liked was the idea of Kirk's father being a captain for only a few minutes to save lots of other people which is covered in the opening sequence.

If this was just a standard sci fi film I could see giving it at 3/5, it is fairly average and middle of the road but the problem is that it is attempting to be part of an existing franchise and in my opinion totally fails there so I have to give it a 2/5.

Limp misfit?

The Education of Charlie Banks (2007)

Fred Durst makes his directorial début with a film college kids in the 80s which stars Jesse Eisenberg. If you have seen any other films with Jesse Eisenberg you can probably guess the sort of awkward, self confidence lacking character he plays as Charlie Banks.

Charlie and his buddy Danny from New York are at college and trying to make friends with the rich kids when Mick, the local bully from New York turns up to visit. What the film is mainly about is to what extent are these young people limited by their class and upbringing.

While Charlie maybe the central character the story is mostly about Mick and how he fits in with the other characters given his bad upbringing and violent nature. Will he ever be more than a passing interest for the rich kids and is his self destructive behaviour inevitably going to ruin things for him even when he is outside of his usual habitat.

It would have been good to see a conclusion sub plot involving Danny and his rich girlfriend who is promised to her fathers business partner but this ends up being a surprisingly interesting film and pretty good all round 4/5.

Horse power

Ben-Hur (1959)

Charlton Heston stars in this semi-biblical epic about revenge, forgiveness and faith. Most people have probably heard of Ben-Hur as it smashed box office records in it's day and is a serious film making achievement but does it stand the test of time?

There are two major set pieces in the film, the sea battle and the chariot race. Sadly the sea battle is a bit of a let down, compared to modern effects it does look rather poor and you can see the limitations the film makers were working under. On the other hand the chariot race is still amazing and I would suggest much better than what would be achieved by a modern director who goes straight for CGI solutions. The set/location is huge and gives a real sense of scale.

Three and a half hours is a lot of time to ask from an audience and the run time of Ben-Hur is a real stumbling block. The story takes a while to get going and skips some of the interesting parts such as showing us how Ben-Hur reacts to his early days as a slave (we jump on three years) and also misses out his entire career as a charioteer in Rome. A 6 hour mini series might be a better way to tell this story, break it up into bite size chunks.

As a film this is a 4/5 out of but I really would not recommend it unless you are a big fan of classic epics of the 50s and 60s.

Wet matches

Backdraft (1991)

This blockbuster about fire fighters looks to have a lot going for it, Ron Howard directing and a cast including Kurt Russell, one of the lesser Baldwins, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Donald Sutherland and Robert De Niro. Unfortunately despite having all this going for it we have a case of Hollywood cheese on our hands here. While the special effects (which won an Oscar) are pretty amazing that is about as far as I would go with praise for this film.

While there is a great cast De Niro has a third rate part and Sutherland plays a fourth rate Hannibal Lecter that went into arson over serial killing. If Backdraft had stuck to exploring the relationship between the two brothers that are the main characters it might not have been so bad but the arsonist plot is nearly stupid enough to be offensive and contains silly contrivances such as having sex on top of a fire engine that is then called out to a fire to get all the characters to turn up at the fire scenes. Even the scenes which show case the special effects are pretty lame and do not seem to show much about how fire fighters actually work.

Over all I think this is probably a 2/5, it is the big budget stupid rubbish that Hollywood likes to turn out and some how people pay to see.

A death in the family

Once Upon A Time in the West (1968)

Sergio Leone is my favourite director and this is his master piece so gushing praise ahoy. I think that the biggest compliment you can give Leone is that is work is constantly imitated and referenced by modern directors but never replicated. West is a summation of all that has come before in the genre and is both a eulogy for the death of the mythic old west and as it turns out the western as a genre. It may have been a while later that Michael Cimino came along and put the final bullet in the head of the western with his massive failure Heaven's Gate, so bad it signalled the end of the “final cut” era for directors and brought down the studio that had financed it but by the late 60s the genre had largely played itself out anyway.

Right from the opening sequences it is clear that this film is all about atmosphere, tone and style. Ennio Morricone's score is haunting and fits the movie like a glove. What stands West out from so many modern films is the way the tension is allowed to build slowly, with the direction savouring the moment before sudden punctuations of violence rather than being all about the violence and fast, frenetic cutting.

The casting is excellent with Charles Bronson, Claudia Cardinale and Jason Robards but especially in the cases of Monument Valley as a back drop and the use of Henry Fonda which is probably lost on modern audiences sadly. The plot is chock full of references to great westerns and the dialogue contains some great exchanges, mostly involving Charles Bronson's character. Having the railways as a metaphor for the impending arrival of civilization and change works really well and can be applied to other situations such as the arrival of big business on the internet. Inclusion of landscape is one of Leone's strong points (something I think Tarantino really misses out on in his work) and Monument Valley does look amazing in the sequences it is included in and adds greatly to the amazing cinematography on show.

While some may feel the film has a slow pace the arrival of Harmonica at the start of the film and the shocking events at the McBain ranch draw you in to a ride which is not to be missed. 5/5 if you have not seen it yet then you should be looking out for this truly amazing film now!

Spelling tests

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001)

&

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)

Here we go with another double bill.

I have never read any of the Potter books and these are the only two of the adaptations that I have seen so I am not a fan boy. I was too old to be part of the whole “phenomenon” as it unfolded and I would guess that part of the lure for young readers was growing up and going through the school system along with the main characters. With all that being said lets get down to business.

From the first scenes of the first film it is obvious where the series is coming from, you can either call it a successor to a whole tradition of British children's books or a rip off that is just mashing them all together. The story opens with Harry Potter in a Roald Dahl novel, he lives with his aunt, uncle and nephew who hate and mistreat him and from there launches off into Enid Blyton, the odd bit of CS Lewis and a whole bunch of other stuff mashed in. The world of Harry Potter is very much rooted in British nostalgia with it's steam trains and boarding schools of the Victorian, Edwardian and early 20^th century period. Hogwarts, the magic school has all the trappings of an old boarding school with it's houses and strange sports. Having a British cast really helps keep the feel of the world, you could just see someone wanting to stick Tom Hanks in here and a Jodie Foster there.

Both films seem to work off the same formula but unusually Secrets is a vast improvement on Stone. The first film does not appear to have much to it really, Harry wishes he had a normal family and the basic plot is stopping the bad guy getting the Stone. When we get to the second film, while it basically follows the same route as the first the plot has much more meat on it's bones and we start to find out more about the characters themselves. You could say that the Potter world is something of a middle class aspiration fantasy world and the second film certainly gets into these class issues with the elitism of the pure blood magic users.

After watching the first two films in the series I am not really in a rush to go out and read the rest of the books or watch the rest of the films but they are not that bad when watched as an alleged adult either, even if it is a bit of a case of trying to see what parts of your childhood got pinched to make up which part of the Potter world. The fact that the first two films stuck pretty closely to the same formula would also discourage me slightly from seeking out further books/films. I would give the first film 3/5 but the second film a much improved 4/5.

A-maize-ing?

The Informant! (2009)

This corporate conspiracy thriller based on a true story takes the interesting direction of having a humorous tone to it and it works rather well. Price fixing in the corn market does not seem like a very interesting subject but the quirkiness of the protagonist and the light hearted comedy style of the film definitely make it rise above its subject matter. It also avoids any potential corny jokes.

Matt Damon carries the film really well which is important as the whole film hinges on his character as there is not a lot of personality to around the rest of the characters. I guess the film makers could have taken a darker route in exploring the subject matter but over all the light comedy style works out well as it would probably be very hard to get people to take the subject matter too seriously. It might have been better if there had been slightly more ambiguity over the nature of Damon's character at the end but other wise this is a very good film.

I give this a 4/5 and dub it the best film about the corn industry (it has many rivals).

Hamster wheels and other problems

Twelve Monkeys (1995)

Even before it starts twelve monkeys has a good shot at being awesome, Terry Gilliam directs (for the first time on a script he hasn't written) and David Peoples (Unforgiven) and his wife provide the script. While he may not have contributed to the script we are in good Gilliam territory with the subjects of time travel and sanity.

Bruce Willis is James Cole a convict sent back in time to gather information on the release of a virus that wiped out most of the worlds population or he might be a crazy. There are some great visual reflections to look out for in the first half of the film with sets in the “real world” echoing sets from the future which may be Cole's fantasy world. The future world is inspired by Gilliam's earlier film Brazil and there some nods to Hitchcock in the second half of the film as well. Brad Pitt is actually really good as the definitely insane Jeffrey.

The only thing I think could have made the film slightly better would have been a little more exploration of the possibility that Madeline Stowe's character could be the one that is really nuts but other than I am not sure you can improve on this film. There ending is also really good and the time travel aspect is handled well, sometimes people can get really bogged down on time travel when it is part of a story. I am going to make Twelve Monkeys the first 5/5 on the blog!

No moustache, no glory.

Hustle (1975)

Robert Aldrich directs Burt Reynolds as a police lieutenant in a film that can be summed up as “life sucks and all women are whores”. A teen age girl turns up dead on the beach by some new posh land development, the higher ups do not want it causing a stir but the girl's father does not believe it is a simple suicide. As this is a “neo noir” things are generally pretty dark, corrupt and are unlikely to end well.

While the plot is going on in the back ground Reynold's character is starting to have problems with his girlfriends line of work (an actual whore). I do not think this is the best work of anyone involved really and I am not sure it actually goes anywhere, it may even be slightly misogynistic given that all the female characters turn out to have questionable sexual morals.

On the lower end of a 3/5, not worth looking out.

Kangeroos

The Boys Are Back (2009)

This is an Australian film staring Clive Owen and is “based on a true story”. What “based on a true” story usually means is someone complaining about their life before rounding out on a life affirming message. That ends up being mostly the case here. Clive Owen left his first wife and son in England and moved to Australia with some bird he knocked up, so now he has two sons but his second wife dies at the start of the film.

The main thrust of the story is that because Owen's character spends most of his time away as a sports journalist he has to get to learn how to be a dad for his youngest and then his oldest son as well. Stuff happens along the way, there is a misunderstanding and then resolution. Par for the course, to use a sporting term.

Ultimately The Boys Are Back is not a bad film but it is not a good film either, it does not really do anything new and is probably a top end 3/5. If you have nothing better to do you could watch this but I would not go out of your way to.

Sneezes spread diseases

Carriers (2009)

Carriers is a (presumably) low budget movie about survivors of a global plague that has wiped out most of the population. Right from the get go Carriers has excellent atmosphere and tension, the desolate landscape and empty urban centres have a really haunting affect. It is an ugly world and the main protagonists are faced with some horrible situations along the way. Dark things have happened and the present does not look much better.

There are some good performances from the cast and it is hard to find something to dislike about this film. Confrontations are largely played for tension and not cheap violence, there are no easy way outs handed to the characters and we are slowly fed information about the world to keep us interested.

I am going to give Carriers a top end 4/5 and a good recommendation, it falls short of a 5/5 as I do not think it will be a film you want to watch over and over again and while it is very good at being the film it is not anything more than that.

Not a movie?

The Pillars of the Earth (2010)

Pillars is a TV mini series that was produced by a bunch of international TV companies, it tells the story of the building of a cathedral in a fictional part of England during the The Anarchy in the 12^th century and is based on a best selling novel. I have not read the book but I sincerely hope that it is a lot better than this adaptation. 

The best thing I could say about Pillars of the Earth is that the sets, costumes and locations are pretty good. Not much TV or film gets made about the medieval period which is a real shame as there is a wealth of potential in the period. There are more wars and civil wars than you can shake a stick at, apocalyptic diseases and all sorts of other shenanigans that could make for great drama. You also have the large part that religion plays in the everyday life of all people during the period and you would think that this would be an area that Pillars draws strongly on, unfortunately there is little real investigation of the topic and it is more of a plot device than anything else.

There are clichés abound, wooden acting, terrible dialogue, ham fisted tying up of loose ends and random changes in the characters that never get explained. I really wish I could have liked this series but it leaves very little to like. For putting out 8 hours worth of piffle it is really tempting to rate Pillars as a 1/5 but as previously mentioned the production quality is good enough for a 2/5.

Brrraaainnnnsssssss

Zombieland (2009)

After the success of Shaun of the dead it is not surprising someone else decided to have go at a zombie comedy and it is also not surprising that there are going to be comparisons. There is not really a lot to say about Zombieland really, obviously it is not as good as Shaun but it is not bad either. Some of the sequences are really good, Columbus is a decent protagonist and Woody Harrelson provides an above average side kick.

The best part of the film is clearly the cameo in the second half which is hard to say much about without spoiling it really but suffice to say when a cameo is the best part of the film you have to wonder if the rest is lacking a little in substance. There are other laughs to be had along the way but the film lacks the depth of Shaun and while I do think that it is a 4/5 it is on the lower end of 4s.

Disaster strikes?

2012 (2009)

Essentially 2012 is everything you would expect it to be, CGI and cheese. If you have ever seen a disaster movie then you have already seen 2012, it may have been a different scenario but pretty much everything that happens is fairly obvious as is who is going to survive once all the characters have been introduced. Where 2012 does differ from your average big Hollywood disaster film is that it is not offensively American-centric, there are actually other nations in the world and the US president does not just dictate to everyone else how stuff is going to go down but other than that the plot does not have much going for it. There seem to be a few minor plot holes but they don't massively break anything and lets face it if you are going to watch a blockbuster like this you should not really be expecting to have to engage your brain anyway.

The other main strength of disaster movies is always the special effects and I have to say that CGI has sort of killed the genre for me. It is really hard to be impressed when you know how much can be done by CGI these days. In the past there was some mystique about how something was achieved in a film but these days you know it is all just some actors in front of a green screen. I also think that CGI is not completely 100% photo realistic yet and maybe that is some of the reason why heavy use of CGI in every action sequence like in 2012 stands out so much. Right now I think we have got to the point where CGI is just a crutch for some directors and does detract at times.

The other issue I have with the direction of 2012 is while we are not getting to Michael Bay levels of flash cutting it does go too far that way at some points in the film. When there is something cool happening lets show it on the screen please not cut, cut, cut, cut and try to give the viewer an epileptic fit.

Overall I think this is a pretty average film that manages to miss the pitfalls of being stupid enough to annoy the viewer so I give it a 3/5.

Introduction

I watch a lot of movies so I have decided to start keeping a record of what I watch and post short reviews on each movie. No doubt my comments and insights will be of great interest to many and that lots of people have been eagerly anticipating such an outlet for my great wisdom. I will score every movie out of 5 and the score will roughly mean something along these lines:

5/5 – Amazing, possibly perfect. There probably will not be many of those.

4/5 – Good.

3/5 – Average, neither really good or really bad. Worth watching but not worth seeking out.

2/5 – Poor, usually this will be films that just have no plot or reason to watch them.

1/5 – Bad, this will be saved for films that are not only not worth watching but also badly made.

I hate spoilers so will try and keep my reviews as spoiler free as possible but I mainly watch films that have been released at least a couple of years ago so I do not think it is a major issue but you have been warned!

So to get us started I will kick off with a double bill of Thomas Harris adaptations.

Manhunter (1986)

This is the first adaptation of one of Harris's novels and was directed by Michael Mann. Manhunter is based on the book Red Dragon but a film with dragon in the title had bombed at the box office the previous year so apparently the title had to be changed (I'm sure it made a huge difference). I have not read the book so I can not really say how faithful of an adaptation it is and I guess some criticisms I have of the film will be relevant to the book too.

The film focuses on the character of Will Graham an FBI agent who previously retired after a run in with the now infamous Dr. Lecktor but is convinced to come back to help hunt down another serial killer. Graham is a really interesting character and has enough depth to base the film around but it does seem to come at the cost of exploring the antagonist The Tooth Fairy a little more. The fact that Lecktor knows the killer seemed like a bit of a contrivance to me and the soundtrack dates the film slightly as it is pretty obviously 80s synthesiser.

I was a big fan of the TV show Millennium and Graham's character clearly served as an inspiration for that which my colour my view slightly but on the whole the film stays fairly realistic and does not get too gimmicky which seems to be a major pitfall of these type of thrillers so I think that it deserves a 4/5 score. It's on the lower end of a 4 but certainly an above average film.

Silence of the lambs (1991)

Dr. Lecter is back, with a new spelling of his surname and taking control of this sequel that isn't really a sequel as it is made by different people. Anthony Hopkins dominates the film despite his short screen time and is infinitely more creepy than Brian Cox's performance in Manhunter, although to be fair he has a huge amount more to work with in this script.

Where the previous film was all about Graham this film really has it's strength in the relationship between Lecter and Starling, while this is the film's strength it also comes to dominate the film as does Lecter and really we start to wonder about the relevance of the plot a bit. Buffalo Bill, the killer being hunted could have done with a bit more exploration and depth, what really made him the way he is? Again of all the serial killers in all the world Lecter just happens to know this one too, makes you wonder if they have a yearly convention where they all meet up in Vegas or something.

While Silence of the lambs does have it's flaws I think it's good enough for another 4/5 and certainly worth watching. Anthony Hopkins certainly deserved the Oscar he got for his performance.