Captain America (2011): derivative and superficial fluff featuring Hollywood notions of nationality

After enjoying Avengers more than I thought I would, I’ve been swept up in the recent superhero movie craze and finally got round to giving Captain America a shot.  I thought it was interesting in places but disappointing in others, enjoyable overall but not worth a re-watch too soon.

I liked the character Dr Abraham Erskine.  A great German scientist, he fled Nazi Germany and used his talent to help the Americans – as many Germans did at the time.  It’s good that Hollywood has made an effort to overtly represent the greatly under-represented Nazi-era German people who wholly disagreed with Hitler’s philosophy.  Hollywood itself is dotted with Germany-based talent who fled the constraints of the Nazi state for the free world: Fritz Lang, Peter Lorre, F.W. Murnau, Billy Wilder, Marlene Dietrich and Paul Henreid to name but a few.

Having visited Berlin recently, taking in the history, one of the most profound realisations I experienced was the sheer amount of guilt and responsibility which still weighs down on the ordinary people of Germany to this day due to the shameful and violent past inflicted on their national identity by a select group of twisted people who held power.  I think the Emmy-winning documentary Inheritance best portrays this phenomenon.  It tells the story of Monika Hertwig, by all accounts an ordinary German woman, who struggles to come to terms with the legacy of evil left by her father, Amon Goeth, one of the most infamously ruthless Nazi commandants (notably portrayed by Ralph Fiennes in Steven Spielberg’s Schindler’s List).

In Captain America the villain, Red Skull, isn’t particularly threatening, despite being played by the legendary Hugo Weaving (The Matrix, V for Vendetta, Lord of the Rings) and apparently surpassing the evil of modern history’s most despicable villains, the Nazis.  In spite of this and the fact he’s harnessed the infinite power of Marvel’s favourite MacGuffin, the Tesseract, he’s consistently put down by the Allied forces.  He never presents any real challenge – more an ominous air of ‘you better be frightened, this guy’s worse than Hitler’.  This works for the enduring America-as-hero-terror-as-villain myth which Hollywood (and indeed US politicians) love to propagate, but it just seems that the war is too easily won here.

Howard Stark could’ve been a much more pivotal character in this film, and should’ve been in my opinion.  I mean, come on, it’s Iron Man’s dad we’re talking about here.  The man left a hell of a legacy and this should’ve been milked to the fullest.  I think the writers missed a trick here.

The scene near the end of Captain America where the plane is going down is clearly derivative of the incredible opening sequence of the classic A Matter of Life and Death (1946). So much so, it’s almost as if the character Peggy Carter was manufactured to fit this bill.  In A Matter of Life and Death, a British bomber pilot contemplates mortality before jumping out of his flaming aircraft without a parachute.  He speaks to an American ground-control officer and there is an inexplicable but undeniable attraction between the two as if they’ve just fallen in love.  In Captain America, the nationalities are switched, but the situation is almost exactly the same.  Captain America is plummeting towards earth in an aircraft to stop it crashing into New York City, while speaking to Peggy Carter, a British military officer who’s almost an exact match to Kim Hunter’s June in A Matter of Life and Death.  The fact that Peggy is British and working for the most secretive project in the US military is never explained – the only explanation is that her character is superficial and merely exists to satisfy a crude attempt to pay homage to that famous scene and/or shamelessly replicate its emotive genius.

Going on the theme of national identities, the relationship between Peggy Carter and Captain America could be seen as analogous of Britain and America’s historic alliance throughout the modern era and the present day.  As an extenstion of this analogy, the group of POW’s rescued from Red Skull’s lair who become Captain America’s personal henchmen could be regarded as American alliances (if my memory serves me correctly, I believe this group consists of a Frenchman, Englishman, American and an American of Japanese descent).

A mixed bag of surprisingly impotent villains, interesting representations of the German national identity, derivative filmmaking and missed opportunities make Captain America ultimately not as effective as its big blockbuster brother, Avengers, but still fairly enjoyable.

 

Avengers (2012): Hollywood doing what Hollywood does best - blockbusters

 

Avengers is an entertaining, action-packed, big-budget summer blockbuster encapsulating a massive series of superhero franchises from Marvel.  I’m not generally a fan of popcorn movies, but Hollywood have pulled out all the stops here and made a genuinely likable, easy-going piece of universal entertainment.

There’s not much of a plot, it’s really all about the characters and action.  At just over two hours already, it would be impractical and a different kind of film to introduce deep emotional complexity in every character – and that’s not the purpose of this flick.  It’s all about entertaining action and great characters. 

I haven’t seen the Captain America film but I will definitely watch it now - lines like “it seems to be powered by some sort of electricity” typify his quirky old-fashioned style.  Hollywood being the booming voice of patriotic America, Avengers isn’t subtle about making a Hitler analogy of the villain, Loki, when Captain America confronts him: “You know, the last time I was in Germany and saw a man standing above everybody else, we ended up disagreeing."  This sort of America-laying-it-on-thick sentiment perfectly suits the tone of this larger-than-life blockbuster: an export to the world from a Hollywood puffing up its chest and waving the stars and stripes.

The casting of the characters is spot on too.  Obviously Iron Man, Thor and Captain America were cast for their individual films beforehand, with the idea of a larger franchise in mind, but the newcomers are good too.  Considered one of the most attractive young women in the limelight at the moment, Scarlett Johansson gives Black Widow as much psychological mystique as sexuality – ticking the box for blockbuster eye-candy and feminist-friendly heroine.  As I’ve pointed out before, I really rate Mark Ruffalo, and his Hulk is widely accepted as having blown Eric Bana and Edward Norton’s efforts out of the water - as well as being the first to actually ‘be’ the green rage-monster through motion-capture.  Rufallo’s generally laid-back and slightly introverted demeanour (The Kids Are Alright, Shutter Island) lends itself perfectly to the Hulk’s alter-ego and galvanises the epic rage of ‘the other guy’. Tom Hiddleston provides a despicable villain in the form of demi-god Loki, brother of Thor, with wicked piercing eyes and a spitting thespian vernacular.

The main enjoyment of the film comes from the way the characters bounce of each other.  The chemistry is excruciating between certain characters and hilarious between others.  Captain America and Iron Man are quite similar in that they are both strong egos, both full of conviction.  Instead of trying to pretend they’re quite different, Joss Whedon and Zak Penn realise this and pit them against each other, creating a great conflict of personalities (which is later neatly overcome, of course).  The banter between the titan Hulk and demi-god Thor is typified by the moment Hulk punches Thor for fun.  Thor goes flying out of shot but we know he’s OK and we know it’s just a bit of tomfoolery between mighty superheroes.

One thing I didn’t get about the film is the unexplained tension between Hawkeye and Black Widow.  There’s an implied history between the two characters, although there’s no solid proof in the movie that this is romantic.  I can’t help but think that the producers tried to foster a superficial bond between these two characters in order to  generate more interest around them as they’re less well-recognised than the other heroes.

A uniquely good thing about Avengers and the rest of the recent Marvel superhero franchise is that they’re not afraid to use humour.  The relationship between the fanboy Agent Phil and Captain America (with the trading cards), the guy playing a computer game on the ship, the bit Hulk calls Loki a “puny God”, Captain America’s “Hulk: smash” line - are just a few memorable examples.  These gags are consistent and well-placed, keeping the tone of the film light despite its apocalyptic action.  A captivating mix of action, comedy, drama and sexuality is what the blockbuster audiences want, and that’s what Avengers provides.

Aesthetics-wise, while the CGI and VFX are overdone (of course they are it’s a superhero blockbuster) they aren’t utterly superfluous.  That is to say, while the film does feature gargantuan floating alien creatures snaking through the skies of Manhattan, it’s short and sweet and usually plays a part in the plot.  It’s not all guns and explosions for the sake of it; the action is well-balanced with  dialogue and  a progressing plot. 

I particularly  liked how Whedon handled the scenes in space with Loki and ‘The Other’.  They’re  done in an abstract and surreal style using close-ups and impressionistic aesthetic rather than a explicit theatrical feel.  This not only conjures a mystical atmosphere but ensures the identity of ‘The Other’ (rumoured as Thanos) is relatively obscure, thus creating excitement among speculative fans and, on a pragmatic note, means things like the final design of Thanos and his realm can remain open to alteration until the next Avengers film goes into production (which could take years).

Hunger Games (2012): don't believe all the hype, but don't give up on the franchise just yet

The Hunger Games isn’t as good as I thought it was going to be.  I had witnessed a lot of hype about it beforehand, so thought it was going to be remarkable.  It was enjoyable, but it didn’t match up to the hype in my eyes.  The box office receipts tell a different story though – the film remaining the top-grossing film worldwide for four weeks in a row.  There’s a lot to be said for word of mouth when selling a film.

I thought the visual effects were a little garish in places - particularly the scene where Katniss and Peeta are set on fire and paraded in front of a stadium of cheering fans.  The direction wasn’t particularly interesting – it was quite conservative and naturalistic despite the opportunity for a more sensational style considering the fantastical subject matter and younger target audience.  

The predicament for the director is that he had to portray acts of horrific violence, but keep it suitable for the 12A rating.  He kept it suitable for the kids, but at the expense of realistic violence.  The audience are never really shocked by the violence, but they should be, otherwise the film risks normalising such brutality instead of exposing how wrong and unnatural it is.

Gary Ross has decided not to direct the sequel and Francis Lawrence is reportedly taking his place in the director’s chair.  I am Legend shares similar elements with The Hunger Games world (survival in a dystopian future), so I’m confident Lawrence can make a successful follow up.  It could well be more visually exciting than Ross’ effort too – comparing their filmographies side by side it seems Ross fits well into more grounded dramas like Seabiscuit and Lawrence suits a more fantasy/sci-fi style (eg. Constantine).  

 

I have a couple of issues with the story too.  The parachute packages inspired an incredulous reaction from me, seeming like blatant plot devices and nothing more.  Yes, the film clearly shows they’re bought and sent (legitimately or not) by the contestants’ personal sponsors, but even at this, it seems like quite thin writing.  There are one or two things which just seem utterly implausible too: for instance, the fact that District 1’s Marvel was portrayed as a ruthless, powerful killing machine from the start but was fairly easily defeated by the somewhat underprepared pair from District 12.  I’ve never read the books, so for all I know these shortcomings could be a problem of the filmic adaptation, but much better expressed in novel form.  I’m not going to argue that books are a better storytelling medium than films, or vice versa – it’s like comparing chalk and cheese.

Despite my reservations, there are some parts to The Hunger Games which make me think that it’s not just another fantastical, coming-of-age action-drama aimed at teens and fans of the novels.  I like the issues raised about the dangers of a totalitarian state.  16 year old protagonist Katniss serves as a victim-hero who becomes disenfranchised and awakens to the inequalities of the system.  This theme is not only fashionable in film right now (eg. Dark Knight Rises, Coriolanus, etc.) but also serves as an incredibly relevant analogy (eg. the Occupy movement’s proposed reform of the global monetary system, the Arab Spring’s uprising against dictatorship and tyranny, etc).  The Hunger Games does well to express how not-so-far-fetched such a dystopian society could be.  Hopefully Catching Fire will take this theme and run with it, dealing more with the idea of active protest and revolution – and hopefully Lawrence can make it a little more exciting.

New Pages!

Check out the new blog pages Editors Picks and A-Z Archive.  Both pages just provide another way of navigating your very favourite IOAWYT content, thereby enhancing your blog-reading experience tenfold!!!

In other news, I don't think the acronym IOAWYT will ever catch on.  It's actually harder to remember than simply 'I Only Asked What You Thought'.

Moving on...

I went to see Hunger Games tonight.  Review to follow.  For now, here's a joke you've probably already heard:

Zeitgeist the Movie (2007): believe in myths and be controlled

The ideas presented in Zeitgeist: the Movie (2007) challenge the dominant ideology and are becoming increasingly more relevant nowadays.  In a week when the UK government are proposing supposed anti-terror legislation which vastly infringes on personal privacy and basic human rights, a viewing of Zeitgeist is timely and recommended.  As Allan Massie noted in his article in the Scotsman this week:

“It is bizarre that, since the European Convention on Human Rights was incorporated into our law, respect for the liberty of the individual citizen has diminished, and, as this proposed extension of state surveillance makes clear, we are all viewed with suspicion by authority.”

It seems that acts like the European Convention on Human Rights might be being used by authorities as more of a ruler to judge the extent to which they can legally reach to enforce control over populations rather than promote a culture of liberty.  This is just one example in a string of actions made by the UK government which proves their increasing tendency towards a full blown totalitarian state.  Instead of getting embroiled in the specifics of such an argument though, it might be more enlightening to step back and look at the bigger picture – this is exactly what Zeitgeist does.

Zeitgeist is essential viewing for any discerning, vigilant human being anywhere.  If you’ve always had the feeling that the whole Western, capitalist system is fundamentally wrong and unjust, but never really had the knowledge of economics, religion and politics to realise why, then this film is for you.  It starts to explain, in a simple and accessible format, the sickening corruption that is in the blood of the world’s greediest power brokers.

In ‘Part one: the greatest story ever told’ the film starts by explaining the concept of the myth.  By relating to astrology and religion, it begins to explain how humans have always used myths to describe and understand the course of nature and the world around them.  It takes Judeo-Christian faith as an example of how myths are created and used, as well as underlining the fact that they’re all based on Paganism and early astrology and, so, essentially plagiarised.

The truth according to Zeitgeist is that astrology was represented by myths and stories in order to simplify and explain the complex intergalactic movements at play and how this affected basic things like growing and harvesting crops in order to eat and stay alive.  These truthful myths were then manipulated over time into religious myths.  When you consider how much blood has been shed in the name of various gods throughout human history, it’s humbling to realise these religions are based on nothing more than an analogy of nature.  Zeitgeist explains that religious myths have always been used to control and segregate people, creating fear and war.

This brings the film into the second part, titled ‘All the World’s a Stage’.  Here the film presents the 9/11 myth as understood and promoted by the US government.  It goes on to systematically dissect the myth, explaining the inconsistencies and lies within.  The truth behind this myth is that, according to Zeitgeist, the 9/11 terrorist attacks were an elaborate and intricate plan undertaken by the most corrupt people behind the US government itself.  The aim of the plan was to create a myth so widely accepted by an outraged global public that the US would have justification for the invasion of Afghanistan and then eventually Iraq in order to cease control of oil resources and undertake an illegal war which would last for years, thus generating exponential profits for international defence contractors.  Apparently the London terrorist attacks were all for the same purpose too.  Apparently Vietnam was the same kind of war but without the oil.  Apparently the men in power have been doing this for centuries: creating myths which create a desired reaction amongst a population in order to justify some (usually morally abhorrent) action which normally results in financial gain for themselves.

It also explains that these myths are used to create futile and artificial divisions among humans in order to create a global culture of fear and thus control entire populations.  “Divide and conquer” is the motto given to this strategy of empowerment – make a population fight among itself and become the all-powerful referee.

‘Part three: Don’t Mind the Men Behind the Curtain’ goes on to explain how the corrupt, nonsensical, synthetic global financial system is the main method by which the men in power control governments and the public by a system of slavery.  I’m not exactly clued up on economics but it’s quite easy to understand that the global monetary system is fundamentally unfair.  Central banks regulate how much money is printed and loaned out into the system, and charge every single penny at interest.  There’s no reason for the interest, other than the fact that the men in charge of the whole system pocket the interest as profit and retain absolute control over governments and populations.  The dominant monetary system is a crooked invention – it is not a necessary human resource.

Part three also describes how educational systems are designed to stop people from being “too educated” and “thinking too much”.  It also explains how entertainment, drugs, alcohol and all other permutations of entertainment are meant to pacify entire populations, stop them from being too intelligent and distract them from finding out the horrible truth of how the world is really run.  By this point in the film I’m profoundly aware of Karl Marx’ statement “religion is the opiate of the masses”.  As it appears nowadays, this could be translated more relevantly to “myths are the opiate of the masses”.  It was once religious myths which were used to control people, now it’s myths of all kinds.  Myths which are created by horrific actions commissioned by the men in power and perpetuated by the media which they themselves own.

I don’t think the word Illuminati is mentioned in Zeitgeist – I don’t think it needs to be either.  This film doesn’t concentrate on the so-called Illuminati or any other secret society.  Instead it’s about myths and how they’re used to manipulate the ideologies of the people, control them and thus conserve the system of oppression and slavery that is beneficial for the elite ruling classes.  The people at the top of the system aren't some conspiratorial, secret organization though.  There is no Illuminati or lizard people.  The people in power are just products of the system - whether they were born into power (as is often the case and makes for prime fodder for conspiracy theories) or worked their way to the top, these people are just people who want to succeed and just like the rest of us.  There is a complex system of relativity at play - wealth is relative as the monetary system is invented and so the power structures are imagined.  All people are part of the same global population - differences and divisions are synthetic and learned.  To say that the system is corrupt because of those in charge is to foster a culture of 'us' and 'them', thereby creating more divisions.  Real change of the whole system relies on solidarity - to acheive that relies on the way people think and perceive the world around them.

Later on, the film suggest that “a new consciousness is emerging which sees the Earth as a single organism”.  I can forgive people for criticising this idea and dismissing it as simple and dogmatic, but I like it.  It reminds me a lot of Carl Jung’s notion of the ‘Collective Unconscious’ whereby all people are connected by an unconscious realm of thoughts and dreams.  The idea of all living things existing ‘as one’ is repeated time in time again in religion, philosophy and, now, psychology.  I think Zeitgeist’s big idea is to get us to dismiss the divisive ways of the world powers and realise that we are in this together - at the risk of sounding like a hippy.

Overall, Zeitgeist is extremely persuasive.  I was very aware of this and constantly questioned how much is speculative propaganda and how much is truth.  After a quick search on the director, Peter Joseph, I found a good interview with the man himself and he seems like an extremely intelligent, socially conscious human being.  In this interview he admits that he (and anyone else who has challenged the system throughout history) has come under a lot of pressure for his challenging ideas.  Zeitgeist is so big I’m frankly amazed he hasn’t been assassinated yet (since that’s what Zeitgeist says happens to “all the good guys” – Ghandi, John Lennon, Martin Luther King Jnr, the Kennedys, etc).

I won't be surprised if many people don't enjoy this film.  It makes you think and many people I know generally don't watch films to think, they watch films to be told. The great irony of Zeitgeist's success is that it uses a medium to spoon-feed people information to tell them that they shouldn't allow themselves to be spoon-fed information.  I'm reminded of John F Kennedy's words:

"The great enemy of the truth, is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." John F Kennedy

Zeitgeist is composed mostly of pre-existing audio and video clips and Joseph states in his interview that all of the information in the film is from a source.  I tend to sway towards the viewpoint that, while an enormous amount of creative license has necessarily been used to structure these facts into a persuasive argument, Zeitgeist is more than just propaganda.  Paradoxically, you could say that Zeitgeist is a myth with a motive, just like the ones it criticises, but there’s too much logic and truth to this story for it to be classed as simply another loopy, anarchistic conspiracy theory.

What Zeitgeist doesn’t do is offer any kind of solution or alternative to the way things are.  This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, after all two hours is a good length for a feature (especially one with so much information and thought-provoking concepts to process) and there wouldn’t be enough time to feasibly undertake such a task without losing the concentration of the audience.  I realise that there are three subsequent films in the Zeitgeist series and I expect these will be more concerned with offering a theoretical framework for some sort of positive change.  I fully intend to watch and review these, relating my thoughts to this first review.

For now, I’ll sum up by saying that Zeitgeist is an incredibly influential film which deserves a lot of serious attention.  One man can’t provide a solution to fix a world riddled with corruption, but he can sure put his ideas out there and stir up debate.  The beauty of digital video is that it is such an accessible and easily-distributable medium, perfect for influencing a critical mass that is necessary to reach in order to change the way we live our lives and run the world.  I’m not totally in the know of the whole Occupy movement, but I imagine it might well represent the embodiment of a discontented mass who campaign for truth, justice, transparency and a new global monetary system.  A group who think much like Peter Joseph and seek to evolve the zeitgeist – the fundamental way we all think, live and run the world.

You can watch Zeitgeist the Movie and the rest of the series online for free or download the torrent.

David Kay stands out at the Glasgow Comedy Festival

I went to see Scottish comedian David Kay at Oran Mor in Glasgow on Saturday night as part of the Glasgow Comedy Festival.  STV asked me to write up a review for their website too, so HERE IT IS.

I've actually known David for a number of years now, since he lives and works in my hometown where I grew up.  I used to be in a couple of bands and he was the tech guy for a council-run multimedia centre at the time (talk about multi-talented), so we used to go and pester him to help us record our needlessly heavy, typically teenage angsty songs.

He is one of the most laid-back guys I've ever met in my life, and this really reflects in his comic style.  It's an acquired taste, I think, but massively appreciated by those who 'get' it.  Me being one of those appreciators, obviously.

He's done a number of things for TV and radio and was talking to me after the show about an upcoming project for TV, which I'm not really sure I'm allowed to say anything about yet.  Needless to say, the guy's a (somewhat hidden) gem of Scottish comedy and deserves some serious recognition.

As well as writing up the review, I also helped film the show with the production company Small Majority as part of a DVD project he'll be offering soon.  It was all shot on sparkling HD on DSLRs, so it will look cracking.

Margaret (2011): stressful cinema you can do without

I watched this film a couple of weeks ago and I still haven’t written up a review for it because I haven’t been able to really bring myself to think about it again - probably because it was more of a stressful experience than sitting and enjoying a movie.  

The cast boasts Anna Paquin (of True Blood fame), Hollywood heavyweight Matt Damon, Jean Reno from Leon and Matthew Broderick.  I’ve got a real soft spot for Broderick because of Election, and Ferris Bueller’s Day Off is one of my favourite films, but even the presence of the righteous dude couldn’t redeem this film for me.  Mark Ruffalo is a favourite of mine too (Shutter Island, The Kids Are Alright, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind).  Ruffalo, Damon and Broderick are scarcely in the film though.

 It’s really all about Lisa: a hormonal teenager who seeks to satisfy her insatiable desire for conflict and drama by pestering all of the people who were involved or affected by a horrific bus accident that she witnessed.  Paquin gives a powerful and convincing performance throughout so you can’t really blame her for the films failure.  You can’t simply blame the fact that the character is especially detestable either – we’ve seen anti-heroes and super villains time and time again in cinema, and they can be some of the most engrossing characters to watch.  

The film’s problem is that it focusses entirely on this high-strung, volatile, bitchy adolescent as she goes about a mundane course of day-to-day life, seeking attention and rubbing people up the wrong way.  There’s no real point to all this.  The conclusion resolves to say nothing more than “she’s probably like this because of her age and she doesn’t get along with her mum” or something.

Margaret is nothing more than a character study of a stereotypically hostile, obnoxious teenager.  There’s no clear controlling idea, it wallows it ambiguity and the attempts to reference Shakespeare are laughably pretentious.  It’s too long, entirely stressful to sit through and has no real payoff at the end.

'Official' TV appearance #3

I made my third official TV appearance on Friday night's Moviejuice.  Check it out (available for a month).  I say 'official' because when I was about 6 years old in primary school, the headmaster took our class on a trip to visit Hercules the bear - a trained bear who had appeared in film and TV as a career.  When we visited him there was a Japanese TV crew doing a feature on him, so I probably unwittingly appeared on Japanese TV about 16 years ago, clapping a bear, eyes wide with wonder and the unrelenting enthusiasm of youth.  Come to think of it, I don't remember signing a release...

Anyway, this 'official' TV appearance was to do a mini review on Hunky Dory, which I've also written up a review for here.  The second time I said a bit about Casablanca - a more substantial list of my thoughts on this incredible film can be read here.  My first appreance was to do a mini review of W.E. which warranted a measly one star in my eyes - my full review can be read here.

Here's a still from the show, I'll see if I can find a picture of me with Hercules too...

Hunky Dory (2011): don't let the critics put you off

People have complained that this film is too formulaic, it’s too glossy and sugar-coated and that it’s so steeped in saccharine sentimentality that it will make the overpriced, syrupy Coke that you bought from the multiplex foyer seem sour and flat. 

While there is definitely truth in the above statement, I think enjoyment of this (and any) film depends on your attitude.  If you go into this film expecting to see some gritty socio-political drama focussing on the oppression of Welsh mining classes, you will be sorely disappointed. You will come out complaining about how populist it is, how it’s so conventionally structured and emotionally sensationalist etc, etc.

If you look at the poster, however, it looks like this:

If you watch the trailer, it looks like this:

If you look at the name it looks like this:

Hunky Dory.

The Collins Dictionary definition is:

Hunky Dory (adj.) informal very satisfactory, fine.

The poster is a lovely snapshot of a group of idyllic young friends having fun the blistering summer of 1976.  It’s all orange and glowing.  The trailer gives a taste of how packed the film is with poppy love songs of the era, how predictable the premise makes the plot, how recognizable the angsty teenage characters are, how petty the conflicts seem in this hazy summer utopia of a bygone Britain and how indulgently reminiscent it is.

The signs are there - everything about the design screams out feel-good mainstream movie.    It is unashamedly populist, unashamedly sensational and is obviously going to be as conventional as any piece of popular cinema.  There’s nothing subtle about the way the film advertises this sense of style.

To know all this, watch the film then criticize it for the glaringly obvious is lazy criticism, at best.  Don’t go and see the film if you know you’re going to suffer an adverse reaction to the sheer amount of light-heartedness going on.  That’s like going into a screening of Shrek with your arms folded for the entire movie then coming out in a huff saying to your bemused/horrified children “the guy’s an ogre but not once did I see a man’s skin being peeled off while he was still alive.”

For those more willing to accept this film for what it so blatantly is, I’d say it’s an easy, feel-good film with and great 70’s soundtrack (from the likes of Bowie and ELO) and superb Welsh accents throughout.  A coming-of-age film set in a specific place and moment in British history, it shares an obvious affinity to Ricky Gervais and Stephen Mechant’s Cemetery Junction as well as Billy Elliot (a couple of the producers made this film too). 

There are a lot of characters so the attempt to squeeze in all of their individual stories is overly ambitious, but the cast are great.  Minnie Driver is easily lovable and I get the feeling you’ll be seeing a lot more of Aneurin Barnard’s face in the future.  The ending is a little bit vague and they try and remedy this by giving a ‘where are they now’ sequence during the end credits – which is a bit half-baked (no reference to the recreational activities of the time intended).

Overall, a likeable film with some nice messages (namely Karl Marx’s sentiment “don't let the bastards grind you down”) and a well-polished style that makes for easy watching.

Black Pond (2011): hilarious independent black comedy surely set for cult status

An incredibly impressive debut film from youthful newcomers Will Sharpe and Tom Kingsley.  Black Pond is a delightfully grim black comedy about the Thompson family, who’re embroiled in a tabloid scandal about the death of a new family friend.  They say that truth is stranger than fiction and, while this IS fictional, it has a realistic plausibility and a documentary style which makes the almost farcical events seem hilariously absurd in contrast with the repressed sobriety of the upper-middle-class English milieu.

It’s one of these films that will have you grinning like a Cheshire cat all the way through, giggling and snorting like a child who’s just heard an old man fart during a quiet church service and eventually letting out a proper belly-laugh every now and then.

Colin Hurley, Amanda Hadingue, Simon Amstell, Will Sharpe (writer/director/actor) and the whole cast are excellent and Chris Langham makes a long-awaited return to film (with the controversy of his own personal ordeal with negative publicity perhaps adding its own somewhat dark undertone to the film – almost definitely NOT a conscious effort by the producers though!).

It’s a fine example of typically British satirical wit and exemplary of the potential of indie cinema, considering it was made on tiny budget of £25,000.  The lack of money means this film will only be seen by few people on its limited release, but as it gathers rave reviews and serious respect, it will no doubt earn cult status by the time it’s out on DVD.

More like this and more from Sharpe and Kingsley please!

(I saw Black Pond at the Glasgow Film Festival and wrote a version of this review for STV's entertainment website: http://entertainment.stv.tv/film/299187-black-pond-micro-budget-black-comedy-indie-at-its-best/ )

Vincent Wants to Sea (2011) review from GFF 2012

Here's my short review for Vincent Wants to Sea, which I wrote for STV's Entertainment website after seeing it on the last day of the Glasgow Film Festival 2012:

http://entertainment.stv.tv/film/299184-vincent-wants-to-sea-provides-some-guilty-laughs-at-glasgow-film-festival/

I didn't really think much of it.  I felt as though they were exploiting characters who had mental health problems for the sake of comedy alone, whilst trying to hide behind a pretense of emotional sensitivity.  I get the whole "oh, it's fine, people with behavioural, social and mental disorders are entitled to be funny protagonists in films too, don't be so politically correct, that's worse than not representing them at all!" argument, but this was an almost slapstick comedy that set out to make people laugh, not a poignant social drama that set out to break down prejudice and change people's attitudes.

Tyrannosaur (2011): an unsuspecting, deeply affecting social drama

I had absolutely no knowledge or expectations for this film before watching it and I think this probably augmented the shock that came with its viewing. 

To sum it up in one word, I’d say this film is unsuspecting.  The characters, plot and action are all totally plausible and the realist style lulls you into a sense of suspended disbelief which makes the impending violence all the more shocking.  When I say violence, I don’t just mean a Hollywood-style orgy of blood and guts everywhere.  This isn’t sensationalist torture porn like the Saw films.  Tyrannosaur’s violence is real and conceivable, like it could actually happen.  But it happens when you least expect it and by those whom you least expect it from.  The resultant effect is a shock that stays with you well after the film is finished.

The cast are incredible.  Peter Mullan gives authenticity to a character so filled with rage it would seem impossible for people like him to really exist.  Eddie Marsan is one of the most provocative villains I’ve ever seen on screen and Olivia Colman’s performance immediately tricks you into forgetting what Peep Show is, much less remembering that she was in it.

I left this film thinking Paddy Considine HAS to make more films.  The direction if faultless – it has the same oppressive grey landscapes as you would expect from any social realist film and focusses more on faces, expressions and economic storytelling than superficial flare.  His writing is top notch too.  He has a way of clearly highlighting the issues and themes (domestic abuse, anger, lust and love) and presenting them in a fresh, engaging, inspiring and shocking form.

Tyrannosaur is a damn good film but it’s not enjoyable in the conventional sense of the word.  It’s affecting more than anything.  You're moved, frightened and shaken by the things you see.  You physically and emotionally react and this, I think, is what makes a good film.

Glasgow Film Festival reviews

Glasgow Film Festival 2012 finishes up tomorrow night.  I'll be going to see a few films throughout the course of the day and writing up more reviews for STV.  It's been a busy week for me with work and various other commitments, so I haven't really had time to post the reviews I wrote last week until now.  So, without further ado, here they are:

In Darkness justifies its Oscar nomination at Glasgow Film Festival
Poland's revered filmmaker Agnieszka Holland's Academy Award nominated holocaust film In Darkness is a harrowing look at the blood-stained past with a hidden message of hope.

Sleepless Night does exactly what it says on the tin
Glasgow Film Festival's European Cinema collection is given a raw edge with low-budget action thriller Sleepless Night.

The Kid With a Bike: a poignant tale from simple storytelling masters the Dardennes
The Kid With a Bike offers Glasgow Film Festival a touching drama about the folly of youth and the challenges of fostering.

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel wins over the crowd at Glasgow Film Festival 
The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel is a feel-good British comedy that offers plenty to entertain both the golden oldies and younger film fans.

Time to Spare at Glasgow Film Festival
Glasgow Film Festival balances out its more challenging films with Time to Spare, a sickly-sweet populist comedy.

Black Gold is a rich-looking poor film
Glasgow Film Festival’s Arabian epic Black Gold is visually rich but pretty poor otherwise.

Your Sister's Sister (2011): UK premiere at GFF 2012

Glagow Film Festival 2012 opens tonight.   I got to do a review of Your Sister's Sister ahead of it's big UK premiere tonight.  Here's what I wrote:

Your Sister's Sister STV review


Really enjoyable little indie and some great improvisational performances from the cast - hard to believe it was shot in 12 days.

Casablanca (1942): 70th anniversary

This year Casablanca celebrates its 70^th anniversary.  It was made in 1942 at the peak of the Hollywood studio system, the golden era of cinema, well after the coming of sound and before the entertainment industry was revolutionised by television.  Shot in beautiful black and white this Warner Bros production has a reputation as quintessential classic cinema which has endured, if not improved since the year of its release.  With 70 years of watching, rewatching, studying, analysing and reviewing of this film before me, there’s no way I’m going to say anything new or revolutionary here.  Instead I modestly offer a brief look at what appeals most to me personally about this gem of Classical Hollywood filmmaking. 

Ask any film buff, critic, producer or anyone ‘what makes Casablanca so great’ and you will receive a multitude of varied answers with one consistent feature presenting itself most frequently of all – everybody loves the film.  This, for me, is probably the most prominent reason for Casablanca’s longevity: it’s a real crowdpleaser.

There is a great mix of romance and action - a characteristic which defines most films considered classical in the conventional sense.  The love triangle between Rick (Bogart), Isla (Bergman) and Victor (Henreid) is balanced with a complex action plot where the Gestapo chase blacklisted Nazi detractors across Europe.  The balance between the action and romance plots is the main feature of the film, although Casablanca is a mixing pot of genres.  It’s also political, historical drama, comedy and almost a musical.  There’s something there for everyone.

The level of focus in the story is intriguing.  Not only does the story hone in on a very intimate romantic drama, but tells an epic story that spans continents, cultures, languages and time.  The union of the small scale with the mighty has an overwhelming effect when you watch Casablanca.  

The story is incredibly complex.  What makes Casablanca such a treat nowadays is that it typifies a completely different style of filmmaking than what modern audiences are used to.  Instead of giving us the whole story on a plate in typically highly stylized form, as is the norm nowadays (for mainstream films!), Casablanca makes you work for it.  Most of the storytelling is done through dialogue, referring to back story and off-screen events through the exchanges between characters.  A lot of meaning is communicated very subtly too, so every time you watch the film you notice something new or you pick up new meanings and you question the way you originally put the story together in your head.  While this form of storytelling might be considered laborious or needlessly ambiguous by modern mainstream tastes, it was the accepted convention in the Classical age and its glory lives on.

The dialogue itself is great for another reason: it’s extremely quotable.   Many of the lines from this film are just spot-on and will be cited eternally: when Rick lovingly toasts to the beautiful Isla “here’s lookin’ at you kid”; when Isla asks “play it, Sam”; when a self-destructive Rick drinks and laments his long-lost love “of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine”; when Rick puts it all into perspective “it doesn’t take much to see that the problems of three little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world”; when Louis makes the crucial decision at the last minute “round up the usual suspects”.

Who could forget the music?  ‘As time goes by’ is played repeatedly by the Café’s resident muso, Sam, at the request of the stricken lovers. The main melody is also incorporated into the orchestral soundtrack, augmented into a swelling uplifting arrangement during happier moments and pulled down into a minor feeling during emotional low-points in the plot.

The characters are also truly compelling.  Humphrey Bogart’s Rick is a cynical, self-deprecating businessman on the surface, but he hides sentimentality, an emotional weakness and an enduring principle to do the right thing.  Rick may well be a Hollywood analogy of the character of America during the globally turbulent period of World War II.  Ingrid Bergman’s character is, of course, absolutely gorgeous and full of intrigue, hidden secrets and emotional complexity – everything a classic femme fatale should be.  Paul Henreid’s Victor Laszlo is an international man of mystery, Claude Rains’ Captain Louis Renault is a fickle and corrupt police chief, Sydney Greenstreet’s Signor Ferrari is a fatcat blackmarket baron, Conrad Veidt’s Major Strasser is a relentless Nazi and Peter Lorre almost reprises his role in Fritz Lang’s M as a goggle-eyed murderer desperate to escape the wrath of his impending prosecutors.  All of the characters have some sort of dimension to them, some sort of story – even the waiter in the café has an implied back-story.  It’s only really the Nazis who occupy the realm of the stereotypical, and understandably so.

Generally, the complex interplay between compelling characters, complex stories, witty dialogue, provocative score and a fusion of genres makes Casablanca a popular classic which has enjoyed 70 years of fully-deserved love and fame.  But everyone has their personal favourite moments, lines, scenes and characters – that’s what truly makes Casablanca so great.

The Descendants (2011): a typically Payne-ful but forgettable flick.

Alexander Payne, best known for his low-key life-crisis films Sideways and About Schmidt, stays in his comfort zone with this film but opts for a slightly more family-friendly style.

The Descendants follows the story of a middle-aged Hawaiian lawyer Matt (George Clooney) whose wife has been knocked into a coma and will eventually die.  As he struggles to bring his somewhat dysfunctional family together to deal with her impending death, he finds out his wife was cheating on him.  The backdrop to this is an on-going legal process in which his wider family are trying to agree on whether to sell a sizeable and beautiful piece of Hawaiian land inherited from royal ancestry.

This film delivers a sentimental human drama whilst avoiding clichés.  The trailer and opening sequence states this as the premise: “my friends think that just because we live in Hawaii, we live in paradise.  Are they insane?  How can they possibly think our families are less screwed-up, our heartaches less painful?” etc.  The picture does seem a little too sugar coated though.  Its saccharine idealism overpowers the raw edge and potency which typifies Payne’s earlier films, such as Election. 

I get the feeling that even though I can relate to the characters on an emotional level, there’s still an irreconcilable gulf between me and the Hawaiian upper-classes on a material level.  I subconsciously dismiss the film as self-contained escapist cinema, making it as forgettable as it is enjoyable.  It's one of those films where you feel like you've really enjoyed the experience, but can't remember much of it afterwards.

It still retains Payne’s unique essence, however.  His originality, off-beat humour, lovably flawed characters, understated action and witty dialogue. The story world is very rich, but delivered in an easily digestible plot.  Seeing the seemingly emotionally inarticulate protagonist deal with the complex social pressures bearing down on him is sometimes hilarious, sometimes heartbreaking, but always entertaining.  While not as cutting as some of his earlier films The Descendants adds another refreshingly frank and plausible feature to Payne’s consistently commendable filmography.

Me on TV!

I decided to take my film reviewing talents to the TV!  I did a vox pop length review of W.E. for a show called Moviejuice and it was broadcast through STV on Friday night.  You can find the video on the STV Player (for another 27 days).  You'll see an extremely nervous me at about 9 minutes in.  The full-length written review is on this blog and offers a slightly more comprehensive overview of the film to say the least!  I was going to review Coriolanus, which I loved, but no-one was doing W.E so the producers got me to rate that instead.  One star!  I just hope Madonna isn't coming after me now...

W.E. (2011): pretty, awful.

There have been a lot of mixed reactions to this film.  There’s a reason for that: it’s both good and bad.  I didn’t enjoy it but - staying away from the obvious tendency to judge this film based solely on the fact it’s Madonna who’s directed/co-wrote it - there are some diamonds in the (very) rough.

The film tries to take two storylines which are set in completely different times and places, and merge them into one film.  One of these plots are really good, the other really bad.  The good one is the story of Edward VIII who abdicated from his place on the throne in order to marry a commoner, Wallis Simpson.  The bad one is the story of an ordinary New York woman who’s in the process of leaving an abusive relationship.  The second story is trashy, melodramatic pulp.  Any relation between these two storylines is contrived and every time it cuts between the two, it feels very awkward, forced, meaningless and confusing.

It’s a real shame, because the story of the Edward VIII is an extremely interesting one.  There’s so much there to write about: his controversial lifestyle, marriage to Wallis Simpson, abdication, relationship with George VI and the rest of the royal family – not to mention his alleged Nazi sympathies and friendship with Adolf Hitler!  As a straight historical drama, this story would be truly riveting and I personally think it deserves a big budget treatment.  It could even do well as a glossy romantic drama or a gritty political drama – or a mixture of both.

I do appreciate that Madge has tried to tell this story (which has been done in film and TV before) from an alternative perspective: through the eyes of Wallis Simpson.  This is a credible idea but the film doesn’t focus enough on it.  Instead, it’s needlessly confused by a boring, ambiguous plot featuring a deluded and emotionally erratic protagonist nobody can relate to.

The film is occasionally historically inaccurate and utterly bizarre in places.  There is a point where a news reporter states that Edward is succeeding King George III, when it is in fact King George V (the former died more than a century before).  There are also several absurdities and moments of sheer bad taste, most notably a scene where Edward and Wallis are popping pills at a party as they dance to the Sex Pistols in the 1930s!  The fact Madonna chose the song 'Pretty Vacant' is probably more fitting than she'll realise.  There is a consistent stream of these absurdities which cause serious detriment to the film’s tone and coherency – as if it wasn’t already hard enough to understand.

There is no conclusion to this film either.  By the end nothing is resolved, everything becomes wholly ambiguous and no explanation is given as to the meaning or core purpose of the film.  Just before the credits role, as the camera pans up from nothingness to yet more nothingness, you’re left thinking “what was the point in all of that?”

Credit where credit’s due though: the film has some nice cinematography.  The fashion and costume design is great too.  It’s visually very good and you can tell there are some people working on this film who know what they’re doing, but it’s all wasted on a rotten script.  The film seems to concentrate on fashion, materialism, aesthetics and stylistic elements more than telling a compelling story.  It’s just superficial.

For me, the bad outweighs the good, and W.E. appears as nothing more than an opportunistic derivative of a sub-plot from the King’s Speech, with potential that would never be realised here.  Madonna’s film is brash and contrived at best, random and pointless at worst.

Coriolanus (2011): violent, engrossing and relevant.

Shakespeare isn’t Shakespeare without Shakespearean language.  It might be difficult to understand exactly what the dialogue is during parts of Coriolanus, but there’s no difficulty following the meaning.  The action, the direction and some powerful performances – most notably from Ralph Fiennes and Vanessa Redgrave – carry the film and more than compensate for the language barriers.  Some people walked out about halfway through but the climactic third act made it well worth the perseverance - especially Redgrave’s moving monologue as the formidable matriarch Volumnia.

Gerard Butler was pretty forgettable in this.  Whether that’s because he isn’t exactly of thespian discipline or because his character isn’t particularly pronounced in this play, is up to you to decide. Perhaps he and Jessica Chastain are nothing more than a bit of totty to sell the film?  Perhaps that’s just a bit cynical.

James Nesbitt added an interesting, somewhat unexpected dynamic to the play with his enigmatic nuances of jest and malice.  Also worth a mention was the little-known Dragan Micanovic who played a minor character, Titus, but delivered a couple of pivotal lines with engrossing presence.

The real star of the show is obviously Shakespeare.  His poetic prose courses through your mind and adds fuel to the fires of his drama.  His characters are bold and consistent, truly agents of their own destinies.  The subject matter resonates with political allegory and the film’s release is timely and relevant.  The play set in a present day context highlights the tribal social system which still dominates our affairs.  The story also works to express the futility of war.

Fiennes has done well to translate Coriolanus from the stage to the screen and he hasn’t stretched it too far so as to alienate it from the original text.  Stylistically, the film is quite gritty.  The focus is mostly on the actors, their eyes, their expressions and their delivering of lines, but there are a few purely cinematic moments (fight scenes in particular) which justify the adaptation to the screen.  There are a couple of truly violent moments in the film which blast the cobwebs off the old play and hook the modern, desensitized audience into the story.

Coriolanus is a tense and violent political wartime thriller which makes Shakespeare not only accessible but utterly captivating.  A credible directorial debut from one of the industry’s finest working actors.

Rango (2011): forgivably formulaic fun with lizards and guns

Rango was very entertaining.  There were a few belly-laugh moments for me, which is what I was hoping for.  The action and romance plots intertwined in a classic but original way and there was more than enough quirky style to keep things fresh.

There were a few moments of adult humour (the prostate joke comes to mind) handled cleverly enough so as to coast easily over the kids’ heads and keep the adults sniggering away - as is somewhat conventional for this kind of animated feature nowadays.  I’m not sure when this clever duality of adult and childish humour originated, but it’s certainly very prominent in contemporary films like Rango, Toy Story, Monsters Versus Aliens, etc.  It’s a feature that always drives me to animated films and something which I think will come to define this type of film.  I’m not entirely convinced this feature is even exclusive to animation, rather it’s just somehow more noticeable.

Rango was a lot like Monsters Inc., I immediately thought.  There were a few similarities and in this sense it seems formulaic.  The mayor character was quite like the company owner in Monsters: a bureaucratic fatcat who conserves a corrupt system for the apparent good of the people.  They’ve both also got slimy, formidable henchmen: in Rango it’s Rattlesnake Jake, in Monsters it’s Randall the chameleon-like lizard monster.  The plot is similar in that it follows a story of the feeble yet heroic protagonists’ efforts to uncover a conspiracy and save the day thus.

Cinematically, the film also pays tribute to film history.  It appears  obviously reminiscent of Western genre greats like John Ford, Howard Hawks, Clint Eastwood and Sergio Leone.  Not to mention the tip of the cap to Fear and Loathing.

This breed of animated features endeavours to appeal to a mixture of demographics, not just age but cultures and nationalities (Shrek and Disney-Pixar’s upcoming Brave bring the world a little slice of Scottish culture, for example).   Films like these seem to adopt a formulaic approach in order to ensure global and trans-demographic popular success.   Often very classical and accessible, Rango is testament to the fact that films like this can be both somewhat formulaic and highly original and stylised.  Altogether entertaining, well-designed care-free cinema.