Short review: Scary Movie 2

Director: Keenan Ivory Wayans
(2001)

After the inconsistent, yet funny and occasionally clever Scary Movie, a sequel seemed like it should deliver more of the same. Its most disappointing that Shawn and Marlon Wayans (amongst 9 other writing credits) have given us a dire follow up, offering no intelligence and very little comedy making for a simply terrible film. It follows its predecessor’s formula, almost with the intention of screwing it into the dirt with constant toilet humour is and terrible jokes. The film The Haunting is the framework here, an inferior choice to Scary movie 1’s use of smart slasher Scream. Plenty of other films get treatment from the Wayans brothers, ranging from Charlie’s Angels to the butchering of Dirty Harry’s famous speech; the material feels contrasting with the horror based core of the film. Oh, shit jokes aren’t, and never will be considered good comedy. Avoid.

Short review: Scary movie

Director: Keenan Ivory Wayans
(2000)

Aping Wes Cravens Scream (1997) to the point where it might as well be a remake, this Keenan Ivory Wayans helmed spoof is just as funny as it is stupid. Opening with Carmen Electra’s demise at the hands of a ghost faced killer, our group of teenage stereotypes bring slick gags referencing I Know What You Did Last Summer to weak humour involving fat girls and garage doors, Wayans lathers on his ‘comedy’ and intertextual references by the bucket load. When it works, it’s hilarious, but some shoddy attempts at being postmodern are painful to watch. The film hits a serious low in the second third, eschewing its satirical edge for dick and semen gags, a feeble attempt to emulate American Pie, it seems. Bonus marks for the reveal though, a clever take on Screams smart reveal. Shame about the toilet humour though.

Shame review

Sissy Sullivan: I'm trying, I'm trying to help you. 
Brandon Sullivan: How are you helping me, huh? How are you helping me? How are you helping me? Huh? Look at me. You come in here and you're a weight on me. Do you understand me? You're a burden. You're just dragging me down. How are you helping me? You can't even clean up after yourself. Stop playing the victim. 

Director: Steve McQueen
(2011)

Shame is one of those films that, upon its limited 2011 debut, nobody watched. It became yet another film to be swept under the rug, never to be given the chance that it truly deserved. Hell even starring the wonderfully talented Michael Fassbender-the best thing about Xmen First Class-couldn’t pull an audience. In some sense it’s easy to see why. Shame is a powerful and provocative film, equal parts brilliant and harrowing, undoubtedly the diamond in the rough that was 2011.

Writer/Director Steve McQueen approaches Shame in a way that allows for a semi original story to be told in a fresh and engaging manner. It focuses on Brandon (Fassbender), a middle class bachelor living in New York. He has a seemingly comfortable existence, a nice apartment and a job that appears to pay excellent money. Yet Brandon’s existence is constrained by his near crippling addiction to sex, an obsession that he must plan his life around in order to keep it on a tight leash. He pays call girls for sex, frequently watches porn, masturbates in the toilets while at work and carefully cultivates his routine so his indulgence in women can be as simple as possible. The delicate equilibrium of Brandon's life is completely shattered upon the arrival of his sister Sissy (Carey Mulligan), and he begins to spiral out of control.

Soon we see the lengths Brandon goes to in order to gain his fix as the burdens of Sissy’s appearance presses down on him, aptly portrayed by McQueen by using long, drawn out takes. Yet Fassbender and Mulligan never strain to hold character; they inhabit the role like it’s their own skin. From awkward dates where Brandon's sexual desires simmer under his hollow smile to a fraught and intense argument between brother and sister, the acting never lets up for a second.

McQueen excellently tackles the thorny and at times harrowing theme of sex addiction. And while any form of intercourse gets Brandon off, this theme of doing anything to get a fix has a far more universal appeal than it initially suggests, thus preventing the plot from alienating the audience. The sexual content isn’t censored in any way, with both director and actor seemingly happy to show everything in order to purvey the strong themes that reside at the core of the film. Yet nothing is ever gratuitous, and what is shown is graphic but not arousing, explicit but never unnecessary. McQueen doesn’t pull his punches, a choice that rightfully earns this an adult certificate.

Beyond the brilliant opening and climax, Shame is seemingly content at being solid in the space in-between. There are some good moments, Mulligan’s rendition of New York New York and Brandon’s unbroken jog through the streets of Manhattan, but very few leap out as excellent. While this spaces out the uncomfortable peaks, McQueen is happy for the pace to meander with little in the way of destination. Yet strangely he never feels like he isn’t in control, almost like some sort of self imposed restraint. The overall quality of the film suffers oh so slightly, but it does make the highs (if they can be called that) seem even more spectacular. In a way parallels can be made to Darren aronofsky's Requiem for a Dream, a film that takes its time before climaxing with an emotionally obliterating finale.

While there is a small shred of information to speculate with, backstory between the siblings is unfortunately a little too scarce. There's no need for excessive exposition or flashbacks, such a style would juxtapose with what McQueen is saying, but a little more light on their shared history would have gone along way. Yet despite his control and dedication the plots central themes, the inclusion of a minor scene of drug abuse feels arbitrary and tacked on. The name of the game here is sex and how it controls people, half-heartedly introducing drugs halfway through was simply an awful decision. It’s not brought up again for the remainder of the film, cementing my beliefs that it’s a tacked on scene that is wholly irrelevant.

While Shame is expertly crafted and bursting with emotional resonance, it’s not a film that is a joyful, entertaining watch. It’s a stark, uncompromising portrayal of addiction complete with dark undertones and strong acting from 2 of the most talented up and coming stars. Its strong content shouldn’t be a deterrent to watching Shame; its prickly nature will prove to be an unforgettable experience.

Short review: Alice in Wonderland (2010)

Director: Tim Burton
(2010)

From the kooky Tim Burton comes another take on the famous and beloved Book by Lewis Carroll. Yet despite his trademark artistic style, Alice in Wonderland lacks the enjoyment that has been so prevalent in his other works. The moment Alice (Mia Wasikowska) plunges into Wonderland an abundance of CGI takes over, making the entire film seem hollow and fake. This onslaught of visuals is constant, leaving Wasikowska and co to do their best acting with a green wall. What's worse is the film totally lacks any bite, dilemmas are resolved within minutes causing Alice’s trek through this alien world seem banal. Depp and Bonham Carter are lacklustre, with only Hathaway giving anything close to a solid performance. Throughout Alice says she wants to wake up form this dream, and for most of the 108 minutes I really wish she would.

Life of Pi review

Pi Patel: Above all: don't lose hope. 

Director: Ang Lee
(2012)

On paper, Life of Pi seems like a pretty ridiculous film that I was certain would flop under the weight of its own expectation. Even the project being helmed by the incredible Ang Lee-the man responsible for masterpieces such as Brokeback Mountain- couldn’t quell my fears. After all, Yann Martel’s book has been deemed unfilmable on numerous occasions with talented directors such as Alfonso Cuaron and Jean-Pierre Jeunet passing the film on after being attached. Making matters even grimmer was the choice to shoot in 3D; a factor that's usually a solid indication of an impending cash grab from naive filmgoers who think that viewing stuff pop out from the screen is worth the extra green. Yet these fears were never compounded throughout the 3D viewing that I attended, as Life of Pi feels like a pure piece of cinema, a blissful combination of entertainment and technical wizardry.

The story of Life of Pi is a relatively straightforward one for the most part, told using a framed narrative. Our writer (Rafe Spall) is having dinner with Pi (Irrfan Khan) after hearing that he has an amazing story to tell. We recount Pi’s childhood, from his families acquisition of a zoo to his frequent encounters with various religions and how they shape his life. Events transpire which force Pi and his family to leave India and take their zoo to Canada. It’s on this fateful voyage that a vicious storm hits, sinking the colossal vessel and leaving Pi stranded on a lifeboat with a zebra, hyena, monkey and primary co star Richard Parker, a ferocious Bengal tiger. While Life of Pi is undoubtedly a story told primarily in a visual way, the framed narrative allows intervention from both Pi and The Writer in elaborating on the films more obscure aspects. Lee takes extra care here; he sheds light on the tricky aspects of the plot without ever using a paternal tone, a small success that aids the films universal appeal.

While I often berate films for excessive use of CGI, Lee’s latest may actually be one of few films that incorporate said effects so intuitively that they augment the film in almost every aspect. While some scenes have shots of blatantly fake animals that feel slightly unwarranted, for the most part things mesh successfully with live action shots to make a gorgeous meld of beauty. The choice to incorporate real animals into shots pays dividends too, on many occasions the line between fake and real is seamlessly blurred. This strong technical design is enhanced by some flawless cinematography from Claudio Miranda. Even during the more frenetic scenes- the sinking of the cargo ship for instance- shots never descend into shaking cameras or poorly framed set pieces. This discipline is what stops Life of Pi from becoming a sloppy, expensive mess.

Despite my initial groans of disappointment, Lee’s choice to shoot the film in 3D is a surprisingly good one. Unlike lesser efforts (Transformers 3 I'm looking at you) the use of the additional dimension isn’t solely for cheap gimmicks and things popping out of the screen. For the majority of the film it adds depth to the image, successfully causing a notable distinction between foreground and background. As well as creating a deeper, richer image, it also augments the more intense scenes such as the school of flying fish that barrage Pi’s raft. It’s like Lee even acknowledges the formats weaknesses-most notably how a fast moving camera will make for a horrifically blurring image- and does his best to prevent such a hideous effect from occurring. If only every director put this much care and consideration into the use of the format, it might actually become a viable way of watching cinema.

An important part of the film is Pi’s religious belief, or rather beliefs. He is a supporter of many religions, most prominently Hindu, but also Christianity and Islam. Yet despite this, Lee doesn’t ram religion down the throats of his audience. While the many beliefs of Pi are a prominent part of the story, they merely represent faith in any and all of its forms. If, like me, you’re an atheist, Life of Pi’s religious content isn’t stifling or abrasive, but rather beautiful and inspiring. It’s not what or who you believe, it’s simply about believing in something in times of need. Lee’s handling of such a fragile subject is admirable.

What is undoubtedly Life of Pi’s biggest achievement is how Martel’s tricky novel is made into an enjoyable cinematic experience. Considering a large chunk of the film is a boy and a tiger on a boat, Life of Pi is never boring, and consistently engaging. Suraj Sharma’s performance is engaging and grounded, his commitment to what must have been a tough shoot is marvellous. While the film never rises to a level that can be described as truly spectacular, Life of Pi does what many films fail to achieve by possessing both visual beauty and strong storytelling. A fine showcase for both computer generated effects and that usually useless extra dimension.

Gangster Squad review

Sgt. Jerry Wooters: Well ya gotta die of somethin'. 

Director: Ruben Fleischer
(2013)

I’ll admit, I'm a sucker for films like Gangster Squad. Much to the delight of the studio, I'm drawn into watching such a film when the cast is star studded and story is based around true events. It’s an understandable weakness, Emma Stone, Josh Brolin, Sean Penn, Giovanni Ribisi, and Ryan Gosling. With actors of such impressive calibre what could possibly go wrong? As it turns out, a whole lot.

Gangster Squad kicks off in the most worrisome way; via monologue. While a director like Alexander Payne or Terrence Malick would use such a device to smoothly set the groundwork for the narrative or characters, Ruben Fleischer (Zombieland, 30 Minutes or Less) has primary protagonist John O’Mara (Josh Brolin) talk about badges. The irony of the situation isn’t fully comprehended until later, when he forms a group of elite, gangster fighting cops who don’t actually carry said badges. This team, the ‘Gangster Squad’ of the title are formed by Chief Parker (Nick Nolte) to set in motion the downfall of notorious gangster Mickey Cohen (Sean Penn), a mob boss who’s criminal activities are bringing the west coast to its knees.

Unlike most films that owe themselves to the provocative timeframe that is the the 1940’s, the protagonists don’t fight Cohen with police warrants and detective like sleuthing, that would require a subtlety that both script and director simply don’t possess. Fleischer would much rather blow shit up, and he wastes little time in the assembling of his team of terrors. Up until this point only O’Mara and Jerry Wooters (Ryan Gosling) have any form of development or noteworthy appearance. In many ways this is a positive choice, as Gangster squad functions as a rough and ready action film far more than it does a drama, which undoubtedly feels like is been tacked on at the last minute in order to give the false impression of depth.

The action is passable though, despite lacking any form or originality. Each member of the squad possesses a certain skill, brawler, gunslinger, gadget expert etc that, while horrendously unoriginal, adds spice to the shootouts and car chases. Fleischer doesn’t skimp on said scenes which he excellently places in amongst the beat downs and downtime. The outcome of these set pieces is almost always predictable, but they do a fine job of maintaining a firm grip on the audience’s attention. Its engaging stuff, but anyone hoping for scenes akin to The Dark Knight Rises or The Raid won’t find anything of the sort here.

It’s a shame that Fleischer relies on clichés so often when characters guns aren’t blazing. This is most notable with our antagonist Mickey Cohen, a badly scripted stereotype of a character. Sean Penn is a phenomenal actor, but here he’s far more interested with wearing a perpetual sneer and growling with a laughable, animalistic tone. It’s a shoddy performance, although the script doesn’t give him much to go on considering the most complex action our villain does is scorn at as many people as possible. These laughable aspects of Gangster Squad are situated throughout the script, often tarnishing the atmosphere and tension during critical moments of the plot. during the climactic shootout in a hotel lobby, Penn pulls a face akin to a duck chewing on a lemon, loads a Tommy gun, screams “say hello to Santi Clause!” and engages in a slow motion shootout which includes dozens of presents and baubles shattering under the impact of hot lead. Its utterly ridiculous, one example of some of the abhorrent writing that makes up the majority of the final product.

Gangster squad is a rough and ready film, punctuated by brutal action and Ryan Gosling reaching into his bottomless pit of charisma. The script is dire, story development is often overlooked in favour of another witty one liner and its use of monologuing is atrocious. Yet those who choose to view Gangster Squad will get exactly what’s on the tin; a stupid yet stupidly entertaining action flick masquerading as a slick period thriller.

Short review: How to Train Your Dragon

While I'm not a particularly big fan of DreamWorks films, How to Train Your Dragon was something of an improvement upon their usually middling standard. The film centres on Hiccup (Jay Baruchel) a young Viking boy whose village is stuck in a constant battle with a gang of fearsome dragons. Things turn around when he befriends one of the injured fire breathers and learns the secrets of these flying monstrosities. Voice acting is solid yet the characters are very one dimensional, many of which are dull stereotypes despite the Nordic setting. The animation and use of colours is an improvement by DreamWorks standards as well, both of which render the impressive flying and action sequences incredible. Yet both of these features are offset by a story that is completely predictable and horribly cliché. Still, HTTYD remains a fun, family friendly film.

Titanic review

Jack: I'm the king of the world!

Director: James Cameron
(1997)

When about to watch a film like Titanic, it’s easy to get a little caught up with the films impressive stature and overwhelmingly positive reception. 14 Oscar nominations, 11 wins (both of which are records), a 3d rerelease and 2.1 billion dollars at the box office, a record only recently broken by a certain other Cameron film. Such success often bears down heavily on a film, the weight of expectation the audience carries can be the key ingredient in a recipe for disappointment. Yet oddly, 15 years on and on my first proper viewing, Titanic holds up remarkably well.

However, Titanic isn’t a film that is instantly engaging. In fact, we don’t even begin in the correct time period. Instead we’re introduced to Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton) and his crew of deep sea explorers. Some strong underwater photography shows us the wreckage of the Titanic and through some drawn out scenes we learn of the priceless Heart of the Ocean, a rare diamond that Brocks employer wants to recover. This is all being broadcast on TV of course, piquing the interest of 101 year old Rose Dawson (Gloria Stuart). A few scenes later she’s aboard Brocks ship and recounts a story that astonishes all who hear it. Cameron chooses to tell the story of the unsinkable ship via a framed narrative which, while implausible, brings us to meat of the film, starting in 1912. This is where penniless artist Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio) meets Rose Dewitt Bukater (Kate Winslet) and marks the start of the star crossed lover’s affair on such a fateful voyage.

There's no denying that Titanic is a film that's colossally expansive in scope, a vast challenge that Cameron doesn’t quite wrangle at times. The script is a gargantuan one, the ambitious groundwork to a film that's 3 hours and 14 minutes long. With the sinking of the Titanic Cameron had some impressive putty to mould something incredibly and emotionally moving, potential he squanders in favour of a cliché and predictable love story. When Rose asks Jack to “draw me like one of your French girls” it’s easy to snigger at how silly it sounds. This slack writing extends to the primary antagonist, Caledon Hockley (Billy Zane), the misogynistic, unloving fiancé to Rose. Much like the majority of the upper class characters present, he’s a snooty, stuck up arsehole that could only be more generically evil if he were stroking some dastardly facial hair. Jack isn’t much better, portrayed penniless and happy, a far cry from the miserable rich folk who judge him. When it comes to writing, Cameron gets so very little correct it’s a miracle how the film didn’t fall apart before shooting had even finished.

Despite its almost laborious running time, Cameron manages to get Titanic to work by making the romance between Jack and Rose believable, but this remains the limit of his success. While there is a certain degree of chemistry between them, we don’t feel for them in a way that's particularly engaging. Winslet and DiCaprio share a slight chemistry, but this doesn’t extend itself to bringing genuine emotion onto the audience when things begin to go pear shaped. The fact that our tragic lovers knew each other for mere days does question the plausibility of their bond, thankfully it doesn’t negate the effect of any of the couples more meaningful encounters which at times act as Cameron’s saving grace.

Titanic’s saving grace is its final 3^rd where Cameron shows us the true definition of filmmaking on an epic scale. The romance is cast aside, now acting as a backdrop to the tremendous special effects and burning intensity that create a perfect climax. From the scenes in the flooded lower decks to hundreds of extras scrambling for lifeboats, every scene feels incredibly impressive. While a hefty amount of CGI is used, the love for practical effects is wonderful, a factor that adds an essential element of realism to the horror. Even 15 years after release these scenes are impressive, a considerable feat when you take into account how technology has advanced over the years.

Despite its famous reputation, Titanic isn’t a tragically sad film, something that Cameron’s screenplay sees to. The acting is barely passable and the majority of characters are either unlikable or stereotypes, with the worst being both. But where these departments lack quality, a ferocious finale saves the day with grand scope and even grander direction, offering scenes that will never be forgotten.

Top 10 films of 2012

After the awful year for films that was 2011, 2012 is something of a comeback. The films were better, the box office bigger and the independent efforts were dazzling. Oh, and Pixar made a film that wasn’t total shit. So on the whole it’s been a success, so much so that an end of year top 10 list is actually possible to write. While I've seen some real gems from the past 12 months, there are many films have a late release in the UK, obviously making me unable to view them. So that rules out a myriad of films including:

Lincoln
Django Unchained
Les Miserables
Wreck It Ralph
Zero Dark Thirty

Through other commitments or limited theatrical release I've also missed films such as:

Moonrise Kingdom
The Hunt
Perks of Being a Wallflower
The Imposter
Argo
Headhunters

Honourable mentions

 Sightseers

From up and coming British director Ben Wheatley comes this quirky caravan comedy, as dark as it is funny. Following a new couple on their break to Yorkshire, events cause Chris (Steve Oram) to unleash his serial killer fury, much to the amusement of new squeeze Tina (Alice Lowe). While not incredibly hilarious, it rarely wastes a joke thanks to some strong writing and quality performances. Destined to go down as one of the overlooked gems of the year.

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel

Coming in with one of the greatest assembles of elderly actors in recent memory; TBEMH is as poignant as it is witty. Judi Dench takes the lead role as a group of retirees relocate to India to spend their twilight years. While the brilliance of the cast isn’t completely utilised, it still remains a film that is universally enjoyable, regardless of the age of the viewer.

Now that is out of the way, here are my personal top 10 films of 2012:

10. The Hunger Games

Here is a film that deserves its place if only for being the film that launched the incredibly talented Jennifer Lawrence into the big time spotlight of Hollywood. While the story of a post apocalyptic nation that has a yearly tournament that pits 24 children against each other in a deathmatch is a thrilling one, it’s Lawrence who glues the entire feature into a satisfying, cohesive whole. Despite is big budget it is technically sloppy, but this is a flaw that doesn’t prevent The Hunger Games from being a fine piece of entertainment.

9. Seeking a Friend For the End of the World

This was quite possibly the best surprise that I've had all year. The thought that I would become enamoured with a cute comedy such as this is still something I can’t fully comprehend. It might be because of Carell’s downbeat yet engaging performance, or scenes that brim with hidden emotion. Regardless of the answer, this is 2012’s Crazy, Stupid, Love, a film that escapes the shackles of the trite genre it’s bound to.

8. 21 Jump Street

If Seeking a Friend For the End of the World was the year’s best surprise, then 21 Jump Street was a very close second. A film successor to a TV show that nobody watched, this reeked of a Hollywood cash grab, hell, even the trailer painted such a picture. Yet the results were incredible. It was funny, clever and wildly entertaining, complete with Jonah Hill actually making me laugh and Channing Tatum shedding his dire RomCom facade, revealing a solid funny man hiding underneath.

7. Your Sisters Sister

While Lynn Shelton’s latest can become little to overbearing with its emotional scenes, Your Sisters Sister is an insanely good blend of comedy, drama and romance. After Jay (Mark Duplass) is sent to stay in a secluded cabin to find himself by his BFF Iris (Emily Blunt), he has a drunken encounter with Iris’ sister Hannah (Rosemarie Dewitt). Things escalate from there and, while set mostly in one cabin, the film blends gorgeous photography and strong performances to make a RomCom done right.

6. Life of Pi

Who’d have thought a film about a boy stranded on a raft with a tiger would be an entertaining and engaging film? Ang Lee that's who. With some stunning cinematography and special effects, we are drawn into this story of survival in ways practical effects would simply struggle to achieve on their own. Anyone who dislikes 3D needs to watch Pi with the additional dimension; it enchants the experience even more.

5. Looper

In a way, Looper reminds me of 21 Jump Street in the fact that they both had shitty trailers. 21 Jump reeked of Laziness while Looper seemed oh so generic despite its intriguing premise. Once again I was wrong and writer/director Rian Johnson has delivered a clever, gripping Sci Fi thriller involving time travel and hitmen who are tasked with eliminating themselves from the future. It’s a film like Looper that promises more great work from the largely underrated Johnson.

4. Skyfall

Bond 23 was a film I was hankering for ever since the disappointment that was 2008’s Quantum of Solace. Thankfully with the talent of American Beauty director Sam Mendes, Skyfall was the return to form that this established franchise needed. Combining a good story, plot and setpieces into a seamless whole, Mendes has delivered a film that has the realism of Casino Royale and the charm of earlier iterations in the series. Essential viewing to those with even the smallest interest in the Bond films.

3. The Master

The Master, to me at least, had the potential to be one of the greatest films ever made. Written and directed by the phenomenal P.T Anderson, score from Jonny Greenwood, shot on glorious 70mm stock, Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Joaquin Phoenix? Yet somehow, Andersons first since 2007’s There Will Be Blood was less than the sum of its perfect parts. The first 90 minutes burned with dazzling, unforgettable intensity, yet the final 40 are so very mundane. A second viewing helps, yet even without the film possesses a ‘ghost effect’, it will stay in your mind for months to come. The prickly radiance from Phoenix’ performance is likely to be ingrained into your mind till the day you die.

2. The Dark Knight Rises

Much like The Master, the wait for Christopher Nolan's final entry into his sublime Batman trilogy was painful. Again, much like The Master, it didn’t hit my incredibly high expectations, but it was a fine film nonetheless. While the plot was holey and Bane (Tom Hardy) had a performance gimping grill attached to his face, the film still got so much right. The action shook me to my core, the setpieces were bold and ambitious – both amplified by shooting almost an hour in the razor sharp IMAX footage- and the final 20 minutes are exhilarating for anybody in possession of a pulse. It’s not better than The Dark Knight, but it is the best action film since.

1. Amour

Like 2011’s The Tree of Life, the best film of the year is also the winner of the prestigious Palme D’Or award at the Cannes film festival. Director Michael Haneke sets most of this emotional drama in the apartment of Georges and Anne, an elderly couple who struggle to cope when Anne suffers an attack. Georges tends to her needs in what can only be described as pure affection from beginning to end. It’s visually perfect with its camerawork and is lead by 2 flawless performances, both of which Haneke combines into an emotionally resonant masterpiece. Its slow pace might be off-putting to some, but those that can stomach it won’t ever forget how truly wonderful this film is.

Somers Town review

Graham: You’re gonna get yourself into all sorts of trouble if you stay down here

Director: Shane Meadows
(2008)

After the stunning ‘This is England’ and the disturbing yet entertaining ‘Dead Man’s Shoes’, I was hankering for more of Shane Meadows films. Possessing a reputation of being both underrated and well known in his native Britain, Meadows is a director known for stories involving children, growing up and being set in the midlands. In many ways Somers Town continues this tradition, yet for the first time, the Midlands are no longer the setting, and our story takes place in the hustle and bustle of London.

Much like This is England, Meadows once again casts Thomas Turgoose as the main character Tomo. Fresh off the train from what can be interpreted as a broken home in Yorkshire; he sees London as a city for change, and with only the bag on his back looks to start a new life. The rough and tumble of the capital is hard on him, and when things seem their lowest he encounters Marek (Piotr Jagiello) a polish boy of similar age. Soon their friendship blossoms as they vie for the love of Maria (Elisa Lazowski), a local cafe waitress.

What adds to the development of the duos friendship is Meadows choice to let the camera roll, allowing both Turgoose and Jagiello to show there bond in a naturalistic fashion. Instead of this initially awkward friendship being stiff and unsatisfying, we get additional development through ad libbed shots that are melded into existing scenes. While this gives a rather rough, amateur feel to the finished project, the results are more than worth the lack of polish.

Yet while this friendship is strong, it doesn’t possess enough momentum to fulfil its role at the core of the film. While they bicker over who loves Maria more most of the time, the plot is exceedingly thin on the ground and not even the plot arc involving Marek’s father (Ireneusz Czop) and his harsh unloving nature can salvage proceedings. In fact, for the amount of screentime this takes up, the father and son element is relatively throwaway beyond its use to show Marek's near constant loneliness. The result is a film that almost aimlessly wanders for its 71 minute running time; Meadows concern at portraying these 2 lonely teenagers outstrips the need for cohesion in his eyes. Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t necessarily a bad decision, but anyone viewing Somers Town hoping to be struck by the stark bite of Dead Man’s Shoes or This is England will walk away from the film practically unscathed.

What helps raise the sense of isolation was the choice to shoot the film in old school black and white. This limited use of colour fits the location of Somers Town well, the drab art style and blocky, constrained apartment that Marek resides in makes it feel like shooting them in colour would be a crime. Only in the final scene does Meadows move away from the lack of colour, a delightful segment that shouldn’t be spoiled until it’s seen. The change of stock has some significance in one wishes to find it, both in a positive and negative fashion.

Somers Town isn’t Meadows best work. It’s short, scrappy and has far too many montages when taking into account its minute length. Yet the characters and the situations that they find themselves in are a surreal blend of optimism and melancholy in both their present state and potential future predicaments. This meaning the gently simmers throughout the film makes Somers Town a worthwhile, if unspectacular effort.

Carnage review

Nancy Cowan: At least our kid isn't a little wimpy-ass faggot! 
Penelope Longstreet: Yours is a FUCKING SNITCH! 

Director: Roman Polanski
(2011)

Its films like Carnage that I'm almost instantly drawn to. I mean what's not to like? A world class director in Roman Polanski, 4 wonderful actors in the form of Kate Winslet, Jodie Foster, Christoph Waltz and John C. Reilly and a trailer that is simultaneously engaging and humorous. While Carnage is an enjoyable, dialogue heavy film, the fact it’s based on a stage play has caused some severe negatives on its transition to the screen.

The premise for Carnage is a basic, yet effective one. Penelope Longstreet (Jodie Foster) and her husband Michael (John C. Reilly) invite Nancy Cowan (Kate Winslet) and Alan Cowan (Christoph Waltz) to their Brooklyn apartment after their sons get into a playground fight that results in the Longstreet’s son losing a tooth. The opening credits aside, the entire film takes place solely in the apartment as the 2 couples go about solving the issue that their respective children have caused them. Soon enough, the civilised behaviour rapidly spirals out of control.

Despite its limited setting, what keeps Carnage engaging is a strong script that's rammed with conflict and confrontation. While the meeting between the couples starts off with some awkward back and forth, small incidents build up to an emotional breaking point where the childish sides of both parties are shown in their full glory. Alan is constantly on his phone, Penelope makes snide, unneeded remarks and Michael agrees to disagree with every argument. This comes to a head with Nancy vomiting, truly setting events into motion. The quarrel quickly strays away from its initial issue of the 2 boys playground fight into a variety of other topics, from Michael’s mother to Penelope’s emotional breakdown. Everyone sides against her, until the hate transfers solely onto Alan. Just minutes later Michael comes to his defence, it’s this shift in dynamic and the opinions of the characters that gives the film an unpredictable and gripping edge.

While this is easily the film’s best aspect, not even Polanski’s direction can save Yasmina Reza’s script (based on her own play) from running out of steam at the end of the second act. The final third runs solely on the fumes of the films great earlier scenes as the characters get drunk on scotch and slur their words to the point of incomprehensibility. Even the consistently ace Winslet shows her average side here, her attempt at being drunk ranks as one of the lowlights on offer. The films climax came far too early and the resulting scenes feel like the aftermath; the dreary calm after the vicious storm.

Still, such an ambitious and restricted idea would fall flat on its face if the performances from our four leads weren’t up the necessary standard. All pull their weight, yet it’s a shame that the characters they embody are borderline stereotypes, from Fosters incredibly liberal approach to proceedings to Waltz’ work obsessed, uncaring husband, there's nothing that we haven't seen before. Carnage begins awkward before hitting an enjoyable sweet spot right through to the vapid and redundant final third. This damages the film to the point of not being recommendable, but its dialogue heavy approach to dramatic comedy has its moments amongst the carnage.

Short Review: Room on the Broom

From the studio that brought us the delightful ‘The Gruffalo’ has scored another hit with yet another short animation, complete with Narrator (Simon Pegg) who talks in rhyme. The story is basic yet charming, a witch and her cat keep accidently dropping items from their broom while flying. The items are recovered by a different animal who joins them on the journey. The complexity ends there. Dialogue is sparse and the delightful animation does a tremendous job of highlighting each new characters personality. Due to an appetite for witches, the group is followed and confronted by a hungry dragon during the climax, but this acts only as mild structure to prevent the entire short from becoming meandering in tone. While not quite as good as The Gruffalo, Room on the Broom is still a success that can be adored by the entire family.

The New World review

Pocahontas: Come, spirit, help us sing the story of our land. You are our mother. You are our field of corn. We rise from out of the soul of you. 

Director: Terrence Malick
(2005)

There's no doubt that The New World is a Terrence Malick film. There are long moments of silence, sparse dialogue and complex, whispered voiceovers. Almost another member of the cast, the environment once again plays a significant role here. Shots of nature are in abundance, from gorgeous sunsets to murky swamps, snowy barrens juxtaposed with a raging lightning storm, captured remarkably during a scene. This natural beauty that Malick employs in his work is mesmerising, and cinematographer Emanuel Luzbeki captures his director’s vision to a tee. The camera is always positioned perfectly, progressing the plot or raising our immersion in this small patch of Virginia. Luzbeki is quite possibly the finest cinematographer working today, and his talent is reflected in The New World.

The story here will be relatively familiar to many, of John Smith and how he falls in love with the American native Pocahontas. But this is a Terrence Malick film, so proceedings have been altered slightly in accordance with his unmistakeable direction. The natural beauty of Virginia is captured with elegant grace, coupled with otherworldly monologues from both Smith (Colin Farell) and Pocahontas (Q'orianka Kilcher). Calling The New World a slow film is a bit of an understatement, but it never strays into being boring. Its pacing is deliberate and meticulous; plot development is slight and minor. Malick is more interested in his typical, shots of long grass waving in the wind, shafts of light poking through trees and the gentle ripples that disrupt the peace of a river. The New World is a stunning film, and quite possibly Malick’s most visually striking film to date.

The core (and for that matter, the highlight) of the film centres around the love Smith and Pocahontas have for each other. Initially unable to communicate due to speaking different languages, they interact with signs and symbols, taking in each other’s cultures as they go. The natives possess no greed or resent, something that wows Smith, as well as the audience. Scenes that last minutes go by without any dialogue, but are propelled forward wonderfully as the pair interact, understand each other and ultimately fall in love. It’s absolutely stunning, a cinematic moment that I’ll remember for quite some time.

Having witnessed the extended edition of the film, pacing suffers horribly as the final third swings around. After 2 hours of beauty and tenderness, we endure a dull slog of an hour, an hour that possesses none of the films initial brilliance. Our protagonist John Smith disappears and his void is filled by John Rolfe (Christian Bale) for the remainder of the film. Bale does a decent job with what he’s given, but it’s hard to connect with a character that hasn’t been developed earlier in the film. Much like smith, he falls for Pocahontas, but in a contrast to Smiths relationship to her, this bond of love is so very flat.

After such a dull and uninteresting finish, The New World feels like an ever so slight disappointment. The great acting and phenomenal cinematography is a consistent treat compared to the structured and emotionally void final hour. Fans of Malick will get the expected experience, complete with trademark voiceovers, but it doesn’t live up to his previous efforts, or his later ones.

Brokeback Mountain review

Jack Twist: I wish I knew how to quit you.

Director: Ang Lee
(2005)

Upon first glance, I perceived Ang Lee’s 3 time Oscar winner Brokeback Mountain to be shameless awards bait. I mean, gay cowboys who must conceal their love throughout their lives to avoid hurting/offending their loved ones appeared, to me at least, as incredibly cynical. After actually watching the film for the first time, I can safely say I couldn’t have been more wrong with my short-sighted judgement; Brokeback Mountain is one of the finest love stories ever committed to celluloid.

Opening in 1963, we’re silently introduced to Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Ennis Del War (Heath Ledger) 2 ranch hands that get work on the titular Brokeback Mountain during the summer. Ennis tends to the camp and supplies while Jack vigilantly watches over a herd of sheep from predators. Soon love blossoms between the 2, as excellently portrayed in a rough and passionate love scene. While the feelings they harbour for each other are ferocious, they both understand that society won’t accept their love, along with Ennis’ impending marriage and the fact that they initially don’t consider themselves “queer”. We follow the duo’s lives for 20 years as they try to juggle their wives, families and the intense, perpetual feelings that they share.

At its core, Brokeback Mountain works because its centre is completely filled with intensity and genuine passion. As time passes Jack and Ennis’ feelings grow in stature, first witnessed after the summer of 1963 has finished and the 2 men go their separate ways. Ennis walks into an alleyway, collapses to his knees and smashes his fist into the adjacent wall, sobbing fiercely. There next encounter together results in a passionate embrace upon first sight, much to the horror and anguish of Ennis’ wife Alma (Michelle Williams). Such a fate doesn’t befall Jacks wife Lureen (Anne Hathaway) a housewife who is rather career focused and emotionally cold, a possible explanation for her husband’s constant lust for the embrace of another human being. These four performances dominate the film thanks to a fantastic script and sublime acting. While Gyllenhaal, Hathaway and Williams all steal their fair share of scenes, its Ledger who comes out as top dog, his portrayal of a man who is unsure of his feelings becomes more engrossing by the minute.

Passage of time does an incredible job of showing the strength of their love. Excluding the opening scenes, Lee never beats us over the head with abrasive title cards that declare the date, instead choosing for a much more natural way of informing the viewer of the scenes location in time. A calendar here or a banner at a dance there, there's certainly trust in the audience to pay attention. To match this change in times, the art direction and costumes are restlessly changing, a transition that doesn't feel gimmicky thanks to the great work from many talented characters behind the camera. Said brilliant work is matched with equally as brilliant cinematography. Cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto captures every scene perfectly, from the extreme long shots of Brokeback Mountain itself (actually shot in the Rockies and not Wyoming) to each conversation and scene of intimate passion. There is barely a shot out of place and while this isn’t the most ambitious film visually, the script doesn’t call for such frivolous work.

Despite a couple of middling scenes during the second act, Brokeback Mountain is a consistently engaging, emotional portrayal of 2 men whose love is resented by society. Lee has crafted a truly special film here, his talents shining through every frame. On reflection this finely tuned effort melts into a beautiful, seamless whole, bound to leave a strong lasting impression on anyone lucky enough to view it. Essential.

Short review: A Christmas Carol

Director: Robert Zemeckis
(2009)

It’s been a long time since acclaimed director Robert Zemeckis made a film that isn’t motion capture. A Christmas Carol continues this streak, a retelling of the famous Charles Dickens story not with humans or Muppets, but actors in mocap suits. Jim Carrey is the unforgettable Ebenezer Scrooge, a money loving Christmas hating miserable excuse of a man. Visited by 3 ghosts to lead him on a journey of self redemption, we witness Scrooges past, present and future through an animated lens. While it’s a pretty film, the obnoxious English accents and hideous dead eye syndrome that plagues such a visual style does little to help recommending this film over the myriad of other Christmas Carol films. The performances and cinematography are solid, but by the end of the film things feel a little unnecessary, there are better alternatives.