Sightseers review

Chris: hes not a person Tina, he’s a Daily Mail reader

Director: Ben Wheatley
(2012)

I honestly can’t explain why I was drawn to go and spend my hard earned cash on Ben Wheatley’s latest film Sightseers. My only other experience with the up and coming director was 2011’s hitman horror Kill List, a film I found to be a frustrating effort. At its best it was a tense, exhilarating affair. Yet at its worst, it gave the viewer little information to draw conclusions from, resulting in a maddening ending. Yet Sightseers is a different type of film, hell, it’s a completely different genre; a welcome change that has done Wheatley well, as Sightseers is a funny, entertaining film.

Sightseers focuses on Alice (Tina Lowe) an eccentric woman who lives with her obsessive, controlling mother Carol (Eileen Davies). Things begin to look up for her when she meets Chris (Steve Oram), a ginger faced oddball who we can assess to being Tina's escape from her domineering mother. Despite Carol’s objections, she joins Chris on a caravan holiday to Yorkshire, where the wonders of the Crich Tramway museum awaits. Already it’s clear that Tina isn’t embarking on a regular holiday as soon Chris’ dark secrets begin to spill out.

While Sightseers is a comedy, it is decidedly different from the usual affairs that we’ve been treated to in 2012. The humorous aspect of the feature plays second fiddle for the majority of the film, with the duo’s banal lives taking the forefront. The planned trips to an aqueduct and a pencil museum paints () as the most mundane man in Britain, but this merely acts as juxtaposition to the fact he is a vicious serial killer. Doing as little as littering on a tram is enough to set him off, swiftly dealing with the perpetrator by ploughing him down with a caravan. Once we witness Chris commit his first murder, his boring lifestyle is perceived in a far more sinister light, transitioning from strange to utterly terrifying.

Yet the film never gets bogged down by its unsettling atmosphere thanks to jokes that possess a constant rhythm in there timing. From the stupid (a hiker demands Tina cleans up her dogs mess as she protests wide eyed innocence that “I didn’t do that”) to the sinister (sodomizing the corpse of a daily mail reader to throw the authorities off Chris’ tail). The humour is consistently funny, but usually not beyond the level of chuckling. No joke ever goes wasted, yet none ever reach side splitting heights either; it’s both a blessing and a curse.

The murders themselves are usually excellent thanks to the sublime editing that crosscuts between multiple strands of story, culminating in an intense payoff. Wheatley uses this technique on more that one occasion, but doesn’t over saturate it to the point of it losing its effectiveness. Once Tina catches on to Chris’ lust for murder she doesn’t try to escape of leave him, instead she accepts him for who he is, her loneliness is captured expertly through solid writing and Lowe’s kooky performance. Soon she starts killing as well, much to his dismay due to the lack of motive and technique. The ending is typical Wheatley, jarring and abrupt, there’s no doubt that audiences may find the ride they've been enjoying so thoroughly comes to a screeching, unsatisfying halt. There's method in the madness, but this doesn't allow for any initial satisfaction in said conclusion.

Ben Wheatleys style of filmmaking is one that fans must surely love, little and often. Much like Kill List, sightseers is only an hour and a half long, but this allows for a terrific output rate. Sightseers might not be an incredible film, but it’s certainly sending Wheatleys career in the right direction.

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: Night of the Living Dead

Director: George Romero
(1968)

Credited with helping redefine the horror genre as well as the term ‘zombie’, Night of the Living Dead is a horror film that harbours some strong themes and parallels. Following 7 survivors who hole up in an abandoned farmhouse when the dead rise from their graves, director George Romero does a solid job of maintaining an interesting pace for a film that largely takes place in one building. Unfortunately NOTLD hasn’t aged well, and flaws are abundant. Acting is wooden, the writing slack and the zombies and deaths are cheesy. Zombies wrestle with survivors in slow motion, seemingly more intent to hug them than harm them.  Characters have the tendency to trip over while being chased, fulfilling another predictable cliché. These banal events are somewhat redeemed by a strong ending, one that is far more engrossing that the rest of the film.

It’s a Wonderful Life review

George Bailey: What is it you want, Mary? What do you want? You want the moon? Just say the word and I'll throw a lasso around it and pull it down. Hey. That's a pretty good idea. I'll give you the moon, Mary. 

Director: Frank Capra
(1946)

Since I purchased the Blu Ray of It’s a Wonderful Life last year, it’s safe to say that I’m going to get my moneys worth out of it. Like many folk, I intend, and so far have managed to watch it every Christmas without fail. The reasons for this are simple, It’s a Wonderful Life is both an excellent film and quite easily the greatest Christmas film of all time.

The film opens with a multitude of establishing shots of the town of Bedford falls. While many films would be content with a single shot to establish the scene, Director Frank Capra does so with such subtle, yet deliberate intent. This small American town is the home of quite possibly the most selfless man ever committed to celluloid, George Bailey (James Stewart). A man with an ambition to travel the world, we witness his life in a framed narrative being narrated by angels who are educating fellow angel Clarence (Henry Travers) on George’s life. He’s a man pushed to his very limit, contemplating suicide to help his business and family survive after his dim-witted uncle Billy (Thomas Mitchell) loses 8,000 dollars of the company’s cash. We see George grow up, how he saved his brother’s life and Boss’s (H.B Warner) career, his relationships and backbone in standing up to the evil and cold hearted Mr Potter (Lionel Barrymore), a greedy villain who wishes to take over Bedford falls and make everyone's lives a misery, all to make his pockets richer.

It’s without a doubt that the love for IAWL comes from its endearing sentiment. While such a claim is often viewed as criticism to a film, Capra imbues his masterpiece with genuine honesty and emotion. No moment is ever forced, and as sweet as it is, the reaction it draws from its audience is refreshingly real. This is coupled with a slew of unforgettable scenes are scattered throughout the film. The high school graduation dance, the run of the bank and the proceeding dinner, the appearance of Georges guardian angel, the empowering, cynicism melting ending; ask ten different people what their favourite scene is and getting 10 different answers is very much a guarantee.

It’s a Wonderful Life is a film of 2 distinct parts. The first is the meatiest, we view George’s life and the affect that he has on his loved ones and on the residents of Bedford Falls. This is in no small part thanks to James Stewart’s excellent performance. He captures the character perfectly, making every emotion and action that George does feel wholly authentic. When walking future wife Mary (Donna Reed) home from her graduation dance, George asks earnestly “What is it you want, Mary? What do you want? You want the moon? Just say the word and I'll throw a lasso around it and pull it down. Hey. That's a pretty good idea. I'll give you the moon, Mary” and we believe him for every word of it.

The second part begins upon the arrival of George’s angel Clarence just moments from George attempting to end his life. Through an act of god we’re whisked off to an alternate reality where George never existed, with George being shown the affect that he has had on the lives of others. While those who complain that IAWL devolves into overtly religious preaching about the sanctity of life have a strong argument, it’s almost entirely nullified by how truly effective these scenes are. While said religious tones are very obvious, Capra doesn’t try to ram these beliefs down the throat of his audience, thus allowing the film to be loved even by the staunchest of atheists. 

By the time the emotional and touching ending roles around the films niggling flaws, most notably the sloppy editing, can be overlooked. It’s a Wonderful Life is undoubtedly the greatest Christmas film of all time, and considering its near universal appeal, one of the best films ever as well.

Pulp Fiction review

Jules: The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee. 

Director: Quentin Tarantino
(1994)

There's something very special about Quentin Tarantino films, something that’s difficult to pinpoint. It’s not the quality of the cinematography, the flashes of hard violence or the intriguing narrative. No, I think my love for his films comes out of the fact he has characters sit somewhere and talk about shit for an entire film and still manages to craft some of the most brilliant, perversely funny films I've ever seen. There’s little doubt in anyone’s mind, Pulp Fiction is a fast talking, pop culture phenomenon.

Opening with a couple chatting about robbing liquor stores and restaurants, Pulp fiction grabs your attention from the get go. The dialogue is a standout; these characters remain seated for almost the entire scene, our interest held by the enthralling conversation. These 2 characters (Tim Roth and Amanda Plummer) are almost discarded as we jump cut to a pair of hitmen, Vincent (John Travolta) and Jules (Samuel L. Jackson) as they do dirty work for their boss, Marcellus Wallace (Ving Rhames). Tarantino isn’t content with just following this duo, and we witness more jump cuts involving prize-fighter Butch (Bruce Willis), Marcellus’ wife Mia (Uma Thurman) and the mysterious cleaner, the Wolf (Harvey Kietel). It’s presented in a non linear fashion, the story consists of various plot arcs that don’t instantly mesh, but become entrancing in the way they fall perfectly into place.

Tarantino shows us that he is one of the finest writers of his generation. There is nary an exchange that isn’t brimming with style or class, every word spoken is thoughtfully chosen. Homage’s are lathered on thick, his previous occupation as a video store clerk being used to full affect. Pulp may last 2 and a half hours, but sublime dialogue makes the time fly. The best scenes are those with Jackson and Travolta. The dialogue here is insane, ranging from the weird (comparing foot rubs to oral sex) to the hilarious (you wanna know what they call a quarter pounder with cheese in Europe? Royale with cheese.) The middle of the film becomes severely bogged down by Bruce Willis’ character Butch. It starts splendidly, with an excellent Christopher Walken starring flashback, but becomes tiresome. The following cab ride with a driver obsessed with death (Angela Jones) was good, but too much time is spent on Butch’s girlfriend Fabienne (Maria de Medeiros) talking about pot bellies and blueberry pancakes. This arc does finish excellently though, violence and death preventing this sizable chunk of film from becoming a total loss.

Complimenting the phenomenal dialogue is the superb work of Cinematographer Andrzej Sekula. His incredibly gorgeous cinematography goes beyond excessively flashing framing in order to augment the narrative. One scene that always stick in my mind is when Butch realises his precious pocket watch is missing. Things begin with a long shot framing both him and girlfriend Fabienne, as he roots through his suitcase to find it. As he searches, the camera slowing zooms in to focus on him, Fabienne out of shot but still talking. Pulp Fiction is full of shots as meaningful as this; both Tarantino and Sekula have successfully added a further layer to the way the story is told.

Once the credits role and all the pieces of the puzzle fall into place, Pulp Fiction can very much be considered and influential, genre defining classic. Rammed with iconic, memorable scenes and backed by a scintillating script and a perfect use of music, we have the defining film of the 90’s. The middle is dragged down and Tarantino pushes the boundaries of self cameo a little too far, but Pulp Fiction is and always will be a classic.

The walking dead Season 3 mid season finale Episode 8: Made to Suffer

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Warning, season 3 spoilers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Click the link to reveal review.

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel review

 Evelyn:  Initially you're overwhelmed. But gradually you realize it's like a wave. Resist, and you'll be knocked over. Dive into it, and you'll swim out the other side. 

Director: John Madden
(2012)

If, like me, your below the age of 20, chances are haven't seen The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. A film aimed very much at the over 60’s crowd, it’s been a box office success proving the over 60’s crowd shouldn’t be ignored. After watching it on Blu Ray, I was surprised at how poignant and diversely appealing the film was, making one of the best comedies so far this year.

TBEMH follows a group of British pensioners who decide that retiring abroad in India is how they wish to spend their remaining days. By using a smartly cut opening 15 minutes, director John Madden effectively establishes the characters, as well as their motives. Evelyn (Judi Dench) leaves England in an attempt to move on after the death of her husband, Muriel (Maggie Smith) moves to get her hip replaced quicker, fearing her time on this earth is short despite her racist tendencies (“I can’t wait that long, I don’t even buy green bananas!”). Others such as Douglas (Bill Nighy) and Jean (Penelope Wilton) leave because they have no choice, while Madge and Norman (Celia Imrie and Roland Pickup) make the trip for a sense of adventure. The most interesting character is Tom Wilkinson’s Graham, who’s choice to return to India is initially a mystery, and the films revelation of his motives is both powerful and memorable, quite easily the highlight of the film.

The state of the hotel itself is like many things in life, considerably different from the pictures. It has its charms, but manager Sonny (Dev Patel) lacks the needed funds required to renovate. One of the many joys of TBEMH is seeing how these various characters deal when outside their comfort zones. While Douglas wanders the city exploring, Jean and Muriel scarcely leave the hotel, their distaste of Indian culture being the primary cause. The plot is purely character driven which does wonders at pacing the film proficiently. The large cast means we get constant progression throughout the film; a joyous feat that keeps TBEMH from sliding in banality.

While the sheer variety of the different story arcs enjoyable, it’s almost a waste of talent that some of the characters are severely underutilised. For all his talent, Bill Nighy has only a handful of scenes, a poor decision considering his importance to Dench’s story (inarguably the ‘main’ character).  Norman makes for some excellent comedic moments, but is used far too sparingly. The same applies to Madge, her cougar like attitude produces chuckles, but she is condemned to the role of comic relief at such an early stage of the film.

The biggest shortcoming that TBEMH suffers from is its ending. Events are a little rushed and would have benefitted tremendously from having more time to unfold. This neuters the ending somewhat, what could have been a climax boiling with emotion is merely warm instead. Penelope Wilton's Jean is the closest the film gets to an antagonist, but is too shallow to resemble anything other than a caricature; despite her solid performance. While it targets a mature crowd, The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel is a wonderful blend of happiness, despair and adventure that can be enjoyed by anyone regardless of their age.

Short Review: The Snowman and the Snowdog

Director: Hilary Audus
(2012)

After the beautiful wordless short hit that was short The Snowman in 1982, we have a sequel on the 30^th anniversary of such a beloved classic. Following the young child from the original as he moves house and suffers the loss of his dog, we’re once again drawn into the magical world of the snowman on the eve of Christmas. Much like its predecessor, no characters speak; TSATS is a silent short, the only words are lyrics from the song that erupts during the film’s most impressive scene. The flickering art style and gorgeous animation has been retained that adds to the magical splendour excellently. The story is light, the plot nearly identical to The Snowman and the Snowdog’s character almost superfluous, but TSATS is a worthy sequel, complete with one of the most graceful flying scenes you’re likely to ever witness.

Silver Linings Playbook review

Pat: You have poor social skills. You have a problem. 
Tiffany: I have a problem? You say more inappropriate things than appropriate things. 

Director: David O.Russell
(2012)

Mental conditions are a very difficult, and often serious subject to commit to film. When making a film that deals with such illnesses, it’s undoubtedly going to be a challenge for any director. Play things too dark and the audience may feel stifled and melancholic. Conversely playing events solely for laughs will cause viewers to scratch their heads or even be offended. Much like last years The Descendants, Silver Linings Playbook is a jarring mix of comedy and drama. The only difference is Director David O. Russell has the deftness of a sledgehammer.

The film opens with Pat (Bradley Cooper) in a mental institution. His mother (Jacki Weaver) intends to bring him home after 8 months of his spell, his incarceration caused by a nervous breakdown after his wife cheated on him. This, coupled with his Bi Polar has caused him to realise he needs to reinvent himself in order to have any chance of being with the woman that he loves, despite the  restraining order she has on him. Upon returning home, Pat meets Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence), a desperate, depressed widow who forms a bond with the eccentric Pat as the 2 of them help each other solve their problems. If first impressions were any indication of a films overall quality, SLP has a very unconvincing start. Characters are poorly developed, the plot is stop and start and the story is introduced simply isn’t satisfying. The first 20 minutes are a total grind, and things don’t seem to be getting any better until Lawrence’s Tiffany appears, finally events shift into a higher gear.

The performances are easily the best thing about Silver Linings Playbook. Bradley Cooper, Hollywood’s leading funny man is redefined here in a more serious, dramatic role. It’s a vast departure from the half baked lounging that he did in the Hangover films, and he does have some scenes where he shows he can, ya'know, act. His performances won’t be removing your socks ala Joaquin Phoenix in The Master, but it’s a solid, if inconsistent turn. 2012’s new girl Jennifer Lawrence on the other hand, is easily the star, giving the finest performance in the film, an academy Award contender and rightfully so. Since her tremendous work in The Hunger Games earlier this year she has proved her consistency, once again taking her characters nuances and troubles, displaying them with dramatic authenticity. It’s one of those performances where she embodies the character completely.

So while these young actors shine brightly, the more experienced ones suffer at the hands of minute screen time and a poor script. Robert De Niro plays Pats violent OCD suffering father who, like the entire family, possesses an almost unhealthy obsession with the Philadelphia Eagles. The choice to play his OCD almost solely for laughs is a bad one that's not improved by another one of De Niro’s half arsed attempts at acting. I struggle to look at this man and remember that he once gave the world Travis Bickle; his fall from brilliance has indeed been a great one. Still, at least the script asks something of him, a colossal contrast to Jacki Weaver’s character. Weaver is a great actress relegated to a worrisome mother figure that possesses all the backbone of a jellyfish.

Russell’s slack script tarnishes other aspects of the film too. His characters unhealthy obsession with the Philadelphia Eagles is. Using characters mental disorders to generate laughs is certainly questionable, but the laughs it produces are out of guilt, not the witty script. After the 4^th time Pat remarks about Tiffany’s dead husband, we kind of get the point. This repetitious nature stretches to the character obsession with their local team too, the Philadelphia Eagles. It’s a quirk at first, but soon becomes a rather irksome aspect of the film. What's more bewildering is the part they play in the plot. De Niro’s character insists on betting his life savings  in a parlay the depends on both the Eagles winning and Pat and Tiffany achieving a 5 out of 10 in a dance contest the pair have been practicing for. It’s utterly absurd, the shit that any sane writer would steer clear of due to its pure ridiculousness. I understand that Russell adapted from a book, but why he didn’t refine this terrible aspect of the plot is beyond me.

So after some good scenes between Pat and Tiffany, the friendship they forge through dancing, we arrive at a finale that pulls the whole film into cliché. Will there ever be a film where a man and woman can be just friends? Considering how SLP does well at distinguishing itself from other RomComs, Russell totally bottles it. Coupled with a terrible plot full of convenience, contrivance and plain bad writing, Silver Linings Playbook falls back on its strong performances and guilty humour for all of its 2 hour runtime.

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 Hunger Games review

Katniss Everdeen: May the odds be ever in your favor. 

Director: Gary Ross
(2012)

Films that are adapted from popular novels always face certain challenges when they hit cinema screens. Fans must be catered to, there's nothing worse than the target audience of said adaptation feeling screwed over. Conversely, appeal to general moviegoers is essential in order to be a big enough box office success to warrant a sequel. For the most part, The Hunger Games has the necessary elements to both camps, and is an involving, entertaining picture for the masses.

Set in a dystopian future of Panem, a broken America that has survived the ravages of war after an uprising against the tyrannical Capitol has failed. In order to intimidate the 12 districts that remain in Panem, the Capitol hosts an event called ‘The Hunger Games’. This yearly event takes 1 boy and 1 girl from each district and forces them to fight to the death until only one remains. After her sister gets selected for the games, our heroine Katniss Everdeen volunteers herself to be entered in order to save her younger sibling.

Right off the bat its clear that director Gary Ross is happy to show us the broken squalor that Katniss has to suffer in her impoverished home in district 12. People live in huts and shacks, scavenge food and wash in tubs. When Katniss sneaks out of bounds to hunt for food the electric fence that barricades her in is without power, yet another sign that they struggle to survive each day. It’s strong stuff, and once we’re whisked off to the Capitol at the end of the opening 3^rd, the juxtaposition is a vast one. The emerald greens and thick browns are contrasted with clean whites and pastel shades that resonate from the quirky clothing of the Capitols residents. In terms of crafting a believable and interesting world, Ross is wholly successful.

While the concept of last-man-standing-deathmatch-with-kids isn’t the freshest idea in the world, The Hunger Games succeeds where others fail for a multitude of reasons. Firstly, we have some strong build-up before the games actually start; allowing Katniss to the get the character development required to be a likeable and fully fleshed out character. We also meet the other tributes and get some backstory on them, adding some small meaning to events that unfold in the arena. This can be accredited to both the strong script from Ross, Suzanne Collins (also the author of the novel) and Billy as well as Jennifer Lawrence’s excellent performance. Every emotion is cast on her face; every action feels grounded and real. She’s the driving force for a good portion of the film, due to her isolation inside the arena. It’s undeniable that with a lesser talent as the lead, The Hunger Games would simply be a weaker film.

After an interesting build up involving mentor Haymitch (Woody Harrelson) Presenter Caesar Flickerman (Stanley Tucci) and Gameswoman Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks), Katniss, fellow district 12 competitor Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) and the remaining children are thrown into the arena in a breathless sequence of violence and death. At least, that what I think happens, as Ross’ choice to violently jerk the camera around is crude and often incomprehensible. It’s an understandable decision (to keep the certificate at a fan friendly 12A) yet is ruins action scenes almost outright. What's worse is this erratic cinematography is used constantly in order to give a sense of first person perspective for the audience. When the camera is restless in filming 2 people conversing at a table, it’s clear that the execution of this style was horrendous. The total lack of technical proficiency doesn’t end there, and the editing is also unnecessarily choppy, with shots that don’t mesh together with any impression of cohesion.  ILM’s CGI work is also slack, with muddy textures and animals that merrily skip through the uncanny valley. Considering the 78 million dollar budget, The Hunger Games has a rough and sloppy feel to it.

The Games themselves make up the latter half of the film and are made all the more interesting thanks to the great work that adds weight to the demise of many of the characters. While half of the 24 tributes lack dialogue, the others get some semblance of development, and this causes the vicious murders to have a far greater impact. Some tributes form temporary alliances, teaming up to prey on the weak. Others work alone, staying alive thanks to honed survival skills or just pure luck. The potential monotony of the forest environment is alleviated by cuts to the control room, where the arena is modified to make the Games more exciting, and to Tucci’s commentator, used to inform the audience of events that are mysteries even to Katniss. Both break the films 1^st person perspective, but don’t feel tacked on and add to the overall desperation of Katniss’ situation.

Yet despite said imperfections, The Hunger games is something that is still quite rare in today’s age of cinema; a film aimed at young adults that doesn’t pander solely to its audience. The result is an enjoyable, entertaining feature that is accessible to a wide variety of audiences. It will also do wonders for Lawrence; undoubtedly one of the stars of tomorrow.

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.