Short review: Triangle

Director: Christopher Smith
(2009)

There are so many things to be said about Triangle, yet so little of it can actually be communicated. Triangle is a relatively unknown psychological thriller masquerading as a dumb horror. Unlike others in this subgenre, Triangle twists and turns not to set up a 3^rd act plot twist, but to develop its revelation that occurs in the 1^st act. 30 minutes in and things are looking grim, the cast is tiny in size and obtuse clues point towards our heroine Jess (Melissa George) being insane. An in a flash director Christopher Smith turns the film on its head, with the ocean liner our protagonists are stuck on becoming almost as intriguing as the Overlook Hotel. While its narrative complexity causes some convolution, Triangle is a very solid film, intent to cater to the more cerebral horror fans. A smart, satisfying film that deserves a lot more recognition.

Sound of My Voice review

Peter Aitken: Somewhere in the valley, there is a woman living in a basement. She's actually amassing followers. These people believe that she will actually lead them to salvation, or whatever. And yes, she's dangerous - but we have to see this thing through. All the way. 

Director: Ben Batmanglij
(2012)

There’s something so intoxicating about cult films. Not cult in the sense of having a niche, dedicated audience, but a film about semi religious groups and their almost always twisted ideologies. While said subgenre practically always features the usual devoted followers and the charming, smooth talking ringleader, Sound of My Voice puts a subtle twist on these conventions, creating a successful combination of drama and science fiction.

After clearing the initiation, our 2 protagonists Peter (Christopher Denham) and Lorna (Nicole Vicius) follow instructions to become acquainted with a mysterious cult in the San Fernando Valley. Their hope is to expose the cult to the public; an action that Peter thinks will save the followers from a grisly fate. The leader of this unnamed group is Maggie (Brit Marling), an incredibly charismatic woman who tells everyone an incredible story. She makes the seemingly absurd statement of claiming she’s from the future-2054 to be precise- coming back to prepare others for the dangers that will soon face America. As Peter and Lorna become more engrossed with the group, the start to wonder if Maggie’s story is an elaborate lie, or if she genuinely has travelled back in time.

It should be stated that Sound of My Voice isn’t a film that spoon feeds its audience answers. Writer/star Brit Marling and writer/director Ben Batmanglij leave almost every scene or event up to interpretation, happy to leave the mental heavy lifting to their audience. This ambiguity is primarily focused upon Maggie, Batmanglij gives strong evidence to support the fact she is a time traveller, but simultaneously offers enough information to lead us to believe she’s nothing but a snake oil salesman. This open ended nature extends to other aspects of the plot, such as the purpose of the cult, the reason Maggie demands blood samples from new members and her obsession with a young girl named Abigail. Some may instantly label this as the result of a slack screenplay, but Batmanglij does enough to maintain tension and intrigue through to the closing shot.

What helps the film out magnificently is Marling’s performance as Maggie. She gives a performance that bubbles with hidden intensity, a caring character that is sharp to counter any who question her. Could she really be from 2054? She sings the group a song from the future, identified by a member who states it actually originated from the 1990’s. The second the doubt creeps in Maggie is sharp to react, claiming she wouldn’t know about the 90’s considering she was born in 2030. This is the brilliance of Marling’s work, she compliments the script perfectly, and her actions never outright reveal her true intentions. In lesser hands the films effectiveness would have been severely diminished, but this up and coming starlet succeeds almost effortlessly.

Where Sound of My Voice falters is in its 2 leads, both unlikable and convincing. Too little time is invested in these characters, underdeveloped and relatively uninteresting, especially when compared to the tour de force that is Brit Marling. Plot development becomes too snappy during the final third; a longer run time would have done wonders to the overall product. In a year that’s given us a lot of films based on cults and organised religion (The Master, Martha Marcy May Marlene), The sound of My Voice stands shoulder to shoulder with them, as open ended as it is fantastic.

The Shining review

Jack Torrance: Wendy? Darling? Light, of my life. I'm not gonna hurt ya. You didn't let me finish my sentence. I said, I'm not gonna hurt ya. I'm just going to bash your brains in. Gonna bash 'em right the fuck in! Hahaha!

Director: Stanley Kubrick
(1980)

Even though this is now my second viewing, I can’t say that I’ve grown particularly warm to Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining. Sure, it possesses clean lines and stunning camerawork, a great performance from Jack Nicholson and at times is can be a very unsettling film. But like some of his other work (2001 namely) the shining is an acquired taste, a craving that I, as a Kubrick fan, haven’t yet developed.

Those that don’t know the story of the shining will know its infamous ‘heeeeerrreeeessss Johnny’ scene, were deranged family man Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson) cleaves his way through a bathroom door with an axe. The story, like many horror films, is relatively straightforward, at least upon first glance. Jack and his family, wife Wendy (Shelley Duvall in an annoying role) and son Danny (Danny Lloyd) spend the winter at the Overlook hotel as Jack has landed a job as caretaker over the brutally cold months. Obviously, things start to go south, as the Overlook hotel is one very special type of haunted house.

What is most striking (to me at least) is the fabulous cinematography. From the gorgeous helicopter shots of the surrounding countryside to the sublime tracking shots throughout the hotels atmospheric corridors, the shining is a visually strong film. The aforementioned tracking shots are used excellently as we follow Danny riding his tricycle around corners. We follow him in such a manner when he reencounters the twins, 2 apparitions that roam the halls. He has an ability called ’the shining’ which lets him communicate with others, as well as see into the past. It’s integral to the story, and also reveals the depth and complexity that Kubrick has embedded into the film only perceivable through various visual clues and symbolism. It’s this that makes the shining such a confounding and well loved film.

Jacks typewriter refills its own paper, then changes colour, paintings on the wall rearrange and hang upside down, the position of doors change in seconds and giant food cans embellished with the face of an Indian appear and reappear in the storeroom. Is the film a metaphor of the slaughtering of the Native Americans? The hotel is after all; build on an Indian burial ground. What about Danny’s vision of the elevator spewing blood, is this a vision of the past, or the future? Theories about the meaning of this film are as sane or crazy as you could imagine, from faking the lunar landings to symbolism for the holocaust (the number 42 creeps up a lot, the year of the final solution). Are all of these continuity errors a sign of poor filmmaking, or is Kubrick reaffirming everyone's belief that he is, indeed, a genius of the highest calibre. The answer is surely hidden in The Shining; it’s just a shame that I haven't been able to find it. Those that have unravelled this conundrum will undoubtedly speak of The Shining in a high regard, whereas my love is a restrained one.

Short review: Cube

Director: Vincenzo Natali
(1997)

Despite hating Vincenzo Natali’s Splice (2009), I was oddly drawn to his 1997 cult hit, Cube. It puts 6 random strangers into a maze of cubes; each of these strangers possesses a skill that is integral to aiding the groups escape. The characters themselves are almost caricatures, complete with little chemistry and poor performances from the entire cast. Yet this doesn’t detract from the film or the intrigue of the cube itself, its odd machinations and Kafkaesque mystery being one of the finest aspects of the film. The plot unfolds rapidly; each new room offers a new challenge that breaks the group’s conceptions of the maze, causing them to rethink how they will escape. Despite the limited environment (we never leave the cube throughout the 90 minute runtime), Cube constantly thrills; a monumental achievement considering it relies on its audience to gather their own conclusions

The Blair Witch Project review

Heather Donahue: How's east? 

Michael Williams: East? 
Heather Donahue: Yeah, we've been going south all this time. How's east? 
Michael Williams: Wicked Witch of the West, Wicked Witch of the East. Which one was bad? 
Heather Donahue: Wicked Witch of the West was the bad one. 
Michael Williams: Then we should go east. 

Director: Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez
(1999)

No one in their right mind would state than 1999 wasn’t a stupendous year for movies. From American Beauty to Fight Club, audiences of a variety of tastes were certainly well catered for. Out of these great films though, only 2 changed the landscape of cinema, and both shook their respective genres to their core. The Matrix reinvented Sci-Fi with its perfect blend of cyberpunk, martial arts and philosophy, inspiring directors for years to come. The other, often forgotten game changer was The Blair Witch Project, the film that can be accredited with sparking off the craze for the ‘found footage’ genre that makes up the majority of today’s horror offerings.

The plot here is a simplistic, if functional one. A group of 3 young adults wish to make a documentary about the legend of the Blair Witch, a paranormal entity that caused the deaths of many children in the 1940’s. The film takes place in Burkittsville Maryland as the three filmmakers Heather (Heather Donahue) Josh (Joshua Leonard) and Mike (Michael Williams) head off into the woods to gain footage for their project. And it’s not long before events take a turn for the worst and the trio become lost in the woods.

What freaked audiences out most when the film released was simply down to the opening title card. It stated that the events we see is from recovered footage from 1994, and everything is indeed real. While eagled eyed viewers will spot a few anachronisms to discredit this, for the most part, Directors Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez does a fine job of making a realistic, involving film. This feels mainly due to working without a script, and instead leaving the cast rough notes at the various campsites that the actors travelled to. This isolation from cast and crew was a bold choice, yet it works wonderfully. The performances feel absolutely authentic, from the delivery of the ad libbed dialogue to the way each characters personalities conflict with each other.

The film is entirely shot via handheld cameras, and not once do we see any footage that isn’t from a first person perspective. Josh handles the black and white 16mm camera, while heather documents their trip on colour video. This design choice puts us right in the thick of the woods with the characters and the results are great. We as an audience never gets to leave the uncomfortable atmosphere of the group and this leaves us drained and fatigued; like a fourth member of the group. The film constantly ratchets up the tension in every passing shot, tempers rise as things start to go bump in the night. The first night it sounds like an owl and the crunching of a few twigs, but becomes far more malevolent as the nights pass. As heather sticks her camera out the tent to try and sight the cause of the disturbance, the image is pitch black and all we can make out is the sounds of something in the distance. It’s in these heart in the mouth moments that The Blair Witch Project truly shines. Myrick and Sánchez quite literally show us nothing, never resorting to cheap jumps or screaming monsters. The tension builds and builds and then, nothing. It’s undoubtedly an uncomfortable experience that the many imitators simply fail to top.

While lasting a slight hour and 20 minutes, TBWP does have some considerable problems that cause monotony, partly due to the unfulfilling script. The group becomes lost and then proceed to walk for days, complete with bickering and squabbles. Heather is an infuriating, self centred bitch, Mike whines continually, leaving Josh as the only member of the groups who even comes close to be likeable.   The camera is jerked around too much as well, many scenes succumbing to the limitations of such a style. It’s best to avoid this film completely if you suffer from motion sickness as a tripod is almost unheard of. By far the biggest negative that can be levelled at TBWP is that its most innovative aspect, being a ‘true’ story, has been rendered defunct by the ravages of time. 13 years ago people thought this footage was real; nowadays this is an easy charade to see through, resulting in a film that doesn’t retain that sharp edge that made it renowned.  While these faults are somewhat severe this is still a film worth watching, if only to witness a film the redefined a genre.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo review

Henrik Vanger: You will be investigating thieves, misers, bullies. The most detestable collection of people that you will ever meet - my family. 

Director: David Fincher
(2011)

When it comes to remakes, sequels and reboots, I'm almost always in the group that strongly opposes the decision to make such a film, even more so when it’s a Hollywood remake of a foreign masterpiece. While I sure as hell won’t be watching Spike Lee’s Oldboy remake, I did decide to watch David Fincher’s The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo instead of the original. Why? Because it’s directed by David Fincher.

While this decision may seem silly and slightly absurd, Fincher’s track record has so far been fantastic and out of the many I've seen they’ve all been likeable, riveting pieces of cinema. So while the original Swedish trilogy is definitely something I intend to watch, I'm more than happy to wait for the ‘American’ versions instead. Although this wait might be easier said than done, as The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a fantastic thriller that keeps you guessing thanks to its twisting plot and engaging characters.

It’s obvious from the opening scene that you’re watching a Fincher film. It has Jeff Cronenweth’s stunning cinematography, Trent Reznor’s understated yet effective score and a muted colour scheme that plunges Stockholm into a dreary yet provocative haze. Our protagonist Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) has just lost a court case for libel, and now possesses a depleted bank account and a reputation in tatters. Things begin to turn around when industrialist Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer) offers him a murder mystery case that has gone unsolved for 40 years, concerning his niece, Harriet. Henrik is convinced the killer is a member of his family, all of whom live on the same island that possesses only one bridge to the mainland. Juxtaposing Mikael’s journey is that of Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) a mentally damaged woman who is an exceedingly talented hacker with a bizarre dress sense.

What's so fantastic about these 2 characters is how Fincher and his award winning editors Angus Wall and Kirk Baxter perfectly pace these plot arcs in the first half of the film. We spend the exact amount of time with Mikael and his initial clue mongering before getting an insight into Lisbeth’s life, in which she suffers the abuses of her new social worker and an attempted mugging on a subway. This allows for a breathless pace, allowing for intricate yet never overly complicated plot to become totally engrossing. The second half of the film also receives such superb treatment and the 2 and a half hour running time simply flies by; a colossal achievement for a film of such length and intricacy.

The complex plot is thanks to Steven Zallian’s stellar script, a solid adaptation from the book of Stieg Larsson. By drip feeding the audience clues in amongst plenty on exposition, Zallian gives the viewer enough information to keep up with the plot, but never allows for them to become overly knowledgeable about which direction events will travel in next. The dialogue doesn’t feature the quirks or snappy pacing that was so prominent in The Social Network, but this is a different breed of film, one that's cold and mysterious as opposed to being overtly smart and nerdy. The script falters towards the end, where the climax of the book is relegated to mildly gripping epilogue. The reveal itself is somewhat lacking also, but this can be chalked up to the build-up being so finely crafted; the payoff simply couldn’t live up to tactful work from both director and writer.

One thing is for sure, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a dark, unsettling film. Violence and murder are brutal, but almost pale when compared to the early rape scene. It’s hard to stomach, but Fincher knows its importance to character development, so the full force of such an evil act is shown. Such a scene would be pointless if the protagonists weren’t engaging, but thankfully Craig, Mara and Plumber all do more than enough to show the depth and nuances of their characters. The payoff might not be mind blowing, but The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a smart, riveting thriller guided with Fincher’s talent and precision. Easily one of the best remakes ever, as well as the best thriller of 2011.

The Village review

Lucius Hunt: I am not the one with secrets. 
Alice Hunt: What is your meaning? 
Lucius Hunt: There are secrets in every corner of this village. Do you not feel it? Do you not see it? 

Director: M. Night Shyamalan
(2004)

I’ll admit, I was all too happy to bash M. Night Shyamalan until recently. Like many of his detractors, I liked The Sixth Sense, but it was 2002’s Signs where I started to become disappointed with the famous directors work. The ending felt weak compared to the tour de force of The Sixth Sense, and Mel Gibson could be in contention for one of the worst performances I've seen. With disdain for the director and knowledge that it didn’t fare particularly well with critics, I went The Village without the burden of expectation. If only every movie goer could do this for every film, cinema would be a far more enjoyable experience.

The film is set in the late 1800’s; focusing on a village is surrounded by dense woodland. The villagers don’t enter the woods, due to a pact that they’ve made with the fearsome creatures that reside there. No human enters the woods, no creature enters the village, a rule that every member of this tightly knit community are taught from a young age. Our protagonist Lucius Fox (Joaquin Phoenix) wishes to venture through the woods to the nearby towns to gather supplies to improve the standard of living for his fellow residents, most notably Ivy (Bryce Dallas Howard). The elders (including his mother) forbid it, something that he outright ignores, plunging everyone in mortal danger.

Just like his last film Signs (2002), Shyamalan does a spectacular job of mounting and developing the atmosphere of The Village, accentuated by howls in the wind and schools that teach of ‘those we do not speak of’. Shots that are seemingly insignificant, a figure in a red cloak for instance, soon has great meaning bound upon it. Cinematographer Roger Deakins allows Shyamalan to infuse loneliness in images of empty rocking chairs and flickering candles smothering scenes with a creepy, foreboding vibe that dominates first half of the film. It makes for unsettling viewing; so far the beasts that lurk in the tree line haven't even been seen. This is what The Village does so well, the little details add up to make an intricately detailed whole.

Like the vast majority of Shyamalan’s films, things aren’t exactly what they seem. To pinpoint this exactly would be a horrific spoiler, but it’s easy to say the film gives payoff to its build up. In differentiation to the signs or the sixth sense, the twist here leads the plot in a different direction, rather that signalling the end of the film. As a result we have a more satisfying film that doesn’t spend its entire time building up to one moment, portraying Shyamalan’s subtle maturation as a filmmaker instead of the centre point of his films being a cheap trick on the audience.

Even with its terrific atmosphere and gripping narrative, The Village stumbles with its writing on more than one occasion. Halfway through the film I realised Ivy was actually blind, a disability that really wasn’t made clear from the beginning. Exchanges between character is stilted, the 19^th century dialogue comes across as wooden regardless of the actor who delivers it. Weaver is horribly miscast and Phoenix little in the way of lines or development. But through intense build up, shocking payoff and thoroughly haunting music, the village is a good film. It’s not the same calibre as the Sixth Sense, but it isn’t deserving of the hate that it is so often lavished with.

Short review: The Cabin in the Woods

Director:  Drew Goddard
(2012)

The cabin in the woods is a satire on the horror genre, poking fun at the various conventions that the majority of scary films adhere to. 5 teen stereotypes go on vacation and start getting bumped off as quickly as conventions are shattered with a cool wit. The jock has a degree and the whore is a normal girl, but these are changed to stereotype by the minds behind events, kind of like a horror spoofing Truman Show. Still what’s done here was done better in Wes Craven's Scream (1997) and proceedings are ruined with a final scene that shoots the rest of the film in the foot, making the whole notion of mocking events up like a horror flavoured big brother totally unnecessary. Watch this one for the satire, not the horror.

Extremely loud and incredibly close review

Oskar Schell: I started with a simple problem... a key with no lock...

Director: Stephen Daldry
(2011)

At face value, Extremely loud and incredibly close seems like a sure fire winner. Its based on Jonathan Safran Foer’s bestselling book, it has Toms Hanks in it, arguably the finest actor of the past 20 years, and it centers on the emotional affects on a child’s wellbeing after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. All of these elements give ELAIC the elements to become a great, powerful film, like pieces of a perfect jigsaw which should add up to make an incredible image. Unfortunately this isn't the case, and due to some frustrating decisions and very aggravating characters, ELAIC fails to meet its immense potential.

The film follows Oskar Schell, a young and troubled boy who has a special connection to his father Thomas (Tom Hanks). Oskar may or may not have aspergers syndrome, something that his father does his best to help him overcome by setting him challenges called ‘reconnaissance expeditions’. These tasks keep his mind occupied and forces him to interact with strangers, an action that scares him. When Oskar’s father dies in the 9/11 attacks, he loses the only person who understood and his relationship with his mother (Sandra Bullock) becomes unstable. The film starts a year after Thomas’ death, and revolves around Oskar finding a key in his father’s closet, a key he believes his dad has left him to find the lock to.

The story makes good use of flashbacks that help fill in initial gaps in the narrative which inject just enough emotion into the narrative to keep things flowing. It’s in these scenes that we see the events of 9/11 as they happen. Despite how horrifying this sounds, director Stephen Daldry handles this delicate matter with the upmost sensitivity. We see Sandra bullock’s character standing in her office, looking out to see the towers smoking in the distance. In later scenes we witness footage of the collapsing of one of the towers on a television. The camera holds for a few seconds and then cuts. It’s all that’s required from these scenes, and isn't shown to the point of being manipulative or cheap. This is, after all, a very delicate matter, which also makes for the most delicate aspect of the film.

What isn't delicate though, is the main character Oskar. At what is no fault of young actor Thomas Horn, we could well have a contender for most annoying character of all time. He’s rude, whiny and impolite; his verbal exchange with John Goodman’s doorman showing the full extent of this. I understand that Oskar does have a problem, something worsened by the loss of his father, and I can empathise completely. But after 2 hours of screaming at trains and the persistent rattle of his tambourine, switching the film off was looking more and more attractive. To counter this we have the renter (Max Von Syndow), who steals the show. Completely mute, he joins up with Oskar on his hunt across New York, interacting by writing notes or using the yes/no tattoos that reside on his hands. Syndow is superb here, showing that his Oscar nomination was well deserved.

Still, for every moment of genuine emotion, there are 5 that consist of a forced saccharine sweetness. When ELAIC flashes its true colours, it’s a powerful, enjoyable film. But all too often it wants to be radiating a constant feel good vibe, something that it simply fails to achieve. After what had been a pretty solid buildup, ELAIC squanders everything with an ending so cloying the audience is at risk of developing diabetes. But look beyond this and its completely unlikable lead character, Extremely loud and incredibly close is a decent film, even if it is a hollow one.

Bullitt review

Bullitt: Look, Chalmers, let's understand each other... I don't like you.

Director: Peter Yates
(1968)

Bullitt is one of those films that doesn’t deserve the reputation that is has garnered. It’s one of those popular films that everybody has seen and loves, but in reality, isn't actually that good. Instead, it relies on a gimmick, and in that regard Bullitt is the Avatar of the 1960’s. Here though, groundbreaking CGI is replaced by a groundbreaking car chase, undoubtedly the highlight of an otherwise dull film.

The man behind the title is Steve McQueen’s lieutenant Frank Bullitt, a cop assigned to protect an ex gangster who will testify against the crime group known as the ‘organisation’. After things go awry, Bullitt takes matters into his own hands. While this has the potential to be a good crime thriller, it fails mainly due to far too much emphasis is placed on Bullitt and his dull life. He goes to the store, sees his girlfriend, goes to bars; it’s all highly mundane. Too much time is also spent in a hospital in the films first half. The story that the film tries to develop here is scarce, and as a result feels stretched too thin. The characters are boring too, and add little to spice up proceedings. Thankfully redemption comes along in the form of the best scene in the film.

It is, of course, the famous car chase. Bullitt in his mustang, the criminals in their charger. The mood is set perfectly. Both vehicles are driving around steadily, trying to figure out each other’s next move. It cuts to one of the antagonists buckling his seatbelt. And in an instant the tires screech and the engine roars into life. It begins. What is so refreshing about this scene is how well shot and edited it is. In today's world, shots are so quickly cut together it’s hard to understand what events are unfolding, but not with Bullitt. The camera is either placed on the corner of the street or inside the car, allowing the viewer to feel more intimate with the unfolding events. The vehicles scream round corners and launch over bumps, their engines deafening. It’s such a raw thrill that it caps the high point of the film, which means things can only go downwards from here. After the explosive conclusion of the chase, Bullitt settles into its dull rut once more, right up to the wholly unsatisfying conclusion.

Bullitt isn't a good film. It's laborious to watch thanks to a large amount of uninteresting and unnecessary scenes. It drags too, despite the running time coming in under 2 hours. Still despite this, Bullitt is a recommended watch just for that car chase; it almost makes the film worthwhile.