The Midnight Society,
By Zachary Stein.
There is something special happening in Oakland, an unexplained cinematic phenomenon that is held in the highest of regard by the select audience fortunate enough to experience this “eclectic” monthly event. For those unfamiliar with Tommy Wisseau’s independently produced 2003 film The Room, do yourself a favor; don’t take the lazy route like so many are prone to do and watch the film in the comfort of your own home. As the film industry bends over backwards to meet the convenience of the audience, there are a good number of “Cinerds” (I coined this one) who will not substitute their theatrical viewing for all the pixelated splendors of the web-driven buffered image. The Room demands the type of prestigious audience driven presentation that it receives at midnight on the third Saturday of every month at the historic Piedmont theatre.

Not that it matters, but some context may be helpful. The Room is a very basic San Francisco set love triangle starring Tommy Wisseau as Johnny, the lead character being cuckolded by his girlfriend Lisa (Juliette Danielle), and his best friend Mark (Greg Sestero). There are many other subplots introduced and quickly abandoned such as drug deals gone wrong, terminal illnesses and so on. As the writer and director, Tommy becomes his own narcissistic Superman of the film, his character Johnny is an all-around good guy adored by all. He pays and cares for a feckless orphan boy called Denny (Phillip Haldiman) who seems to suddenly appear and exit in several scenes without reason. Instead of vilifying Tommy for such a clumsy vanity project the crowd embraces him; he is cheered on for his heroics and emotional fragility. On the other hand the character Lisa, who sets back women’s liberation indefinitely, is completely ripped to shreds by an audience who are savvy enough to appreciate the absurdity.

To settle any speculation; yes, objectively The Room is not a “good” film, but its merits are upheld to the passion of the creative force behind it. One will never fathom how this simplistic tale managed to acquire a budget of $6 million, and certainly the money is not on screen. The Room is one of those rare gems of “bad” movies, existing from the mind of a filmmaker whose vision and voice has been codified by an amalgam of pop culture filmic tropes. The way scenes are constructed and the manner in which they unravel represent a disconnect in the perception of the American way of life through the screen, all processed and misunderstood by the enigma that is Tommy Wisseau.  A brief search online pinpoints this man’s origin from Louisiana by way of Europe, although I like to think of him as an organic creation mutating from the cutting room floor of T.V. movie.

Whilst this may come off as an insult to Mr Wisseau I actually have the upmost respect for what his film has become, it takes a certain type of unadjusted, to be able to create something which quickly became known as “the worst movie ever made” and then embrace that designation. Tommy often makes appearances around the country to thank fans as they lampoon and tear apart his labor of love with the utmost respect and adoration. Released in a very limited run, it was quickly pulled after a few weeks, but enough people had seen it for traction to build. It made its impact in the no-holds-barred midnight circuit where it took on an audience-interactive Rocky Horroresque mode. All around the world special midnight showings of The Room pack in the crowds ready to take part in the unique experience.

It’s here where my opening line (stolen from Moneyball) loses its authenticity, as the film is globally ridiculed and adored, although I’m sure the Piedmont must be one of the only venues still regularly showing it. The Room opens the discussion of the theatrical experience and what can be done to maintain its popularity. These immersive audience presentations are not a new thing, it all dates back to induction of added spectacle with the advent of 3-D, Cinerama, Vista-Vision and other more gimmicky methods such as “Percepto!” for William Castle’s The Tingler (1959) or “Odorama” for John Waters Polyester (1981). The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975) has been running revival shows with live dancers in drag for years, and sing-along features like The Sound of Music (1965) and Grease (1978) have also been very prominent. Whilst The Room was never intended for such theatrical modes it has found its own specialized audience of devotee’s who understand that the work is a unique product that cannot be emulated. The secret of the films warped success seems to lie in the fact that it is earnestly trying to be legitimate; the lavish, clumsy use of green-screen and the extensive original sound track are enough to show the effort of the filmmakers.

The Room in “Spoon-o-Rama” (again that one’s mine) is definitely this generation’s cult audience-engagement movie. The jokes that have grown out of these showings required multiple dedicated viewings by a legion of fans to build to the densely comical presentation it is presently at. The base running joke throughout the screening involves the audience hurling a barrage of plastic spoons in the air whenever the unexplained framed photo of cutlery appears. It is this kind of attention to detail that many of the jokes seem to stem from, not just a communal bashing of the lackluster acting. This may be why the screenings are so enjoyable; the actors and the story are easy targets for the cinematic vultures. Instead the audience will call attention to the filmmaking present, particularly the editing; the overused establishing shots of San Francisco are coupled with the bellowing in unison of “meanwhile in San Francisco,” giving insight into the collective perception of the film as being an equivalent to a melodramatic soap opera. A giant chant begins during a horrifically long transition as the camera pans from one side of the golden gate bridge to the other, the screening quickly morphs into a day at the races. It’s also important to mention that as the years have gone by the jokes have also evolved; in the beginning whenever a shot would be too fuzzy, the audience would scream “focus!” This has now modified to the audience calling out the films cinematographer with a passionate cry of “fuck you Todd!” These are however only the basic jokes present at each screening, because I would feel terrible if I robbed someone of the discovery that can be had at one’s first midnight screening of The Room I’ll stop here, but there are plenty other things to note down.

As we are entering a time of media saturation, it would seem that many films and television shows are simply made to be consumed, enjoyed, and quickly forgotten. The fact that Wisseau’s film is still lovingly appreciated by so many is a difficult thing to come to terms with. One distinction offered to The Room is being “the Citizen Kane of bad movies” and the contrast to Orson Welles is rather interesting. Whilst Wells career peaked early and suffered from bad reviews, failed ambitious productions and a tarnished reputation causing a lack of funding, Wisseau has seemed to excel on his lack of expertise, it would appear that the failure has bought success. I won’t say it is an inspirational tale but it does show what can happen when all hope appears to be lost. Wisseau has announced many follow up projects such as “Wisseau TV” but these have yet to have much of an impact.  Like Welles and Kane, Wisseau will always be remembered for The Room, and will most likely always try and live off it its cult status.

As most screenings these days are marred by noisy seniors and kids on cellphones, many are turning to the comfort of their own homes, I however, am happy to spend my time in the beer fuelled theatre joined by a bunch of film nerds throwing spoons in the air and chanting for Tommy to “fuck that dress.”

A Year In Review: Part Two

February


Chronicle was recommended to me by fellow Filmlead Contributor Nik Von Uexkull, and I’m very happy he did. This is a small film that has the ambition to think big, it’s a character study as we watch what happens when a bullied and troubled young man (Dane Dehaan) is given supreme power. Dehaan is backed up by two fantastic supporting characters and the trio’s entertaining friendship is developed as they begin to experiment with their new found telekinetic powers. The first comic book film of the year is a huge win, despite not actually being based on any comic.

Safe House was a solid little thriller that leaves little impact but is fun enough to watch. Ryan Reynolds is not as cocky as normal and Denzel Washington reduces the normal self-righteousness that has made his performances so predictable. The story is simple, action is clear, yet for me it was outshined just barley by the far more entertaining Journey 2: The Mysterious Island.  Journey 2 was a pleasant surprise and just as disposable as Safe House, but that film is missing a crucial ingredient – Dwayne the Rock Johnson. The Rock has a presence on film that no one at this time can emulate. Last year he took a simple action film that I would have normally ignored (Fast Five) and turned the movie into one of the most enjoyable action films of the year. The Rock has an unmatched ability to be both incredibly foreboding whilst goofy. I can’t recommend Journey 2 but if you enjoy The Rock something tells me you will have fun with it. Michael Cane and Luis Guzman also round out the cast.

Wanderlust was the first enjoyable comedy of the year but definitely not a great one. The film was again seen by very few, starring two normally bankable leads in Jennifer Aniston and Paul Rudd. They are the stuffy New York couple that find themselves stranded in a hippie commune way out in the woods. The usual hijinks ensue, it’s just a shame that nearly every scene feels like an extended cut one would normally find on a DVD.

Films I avoided: W.E., Star Wars Episode 1 3D, The Vow, This Means War, Act of Valor, Good Deeds and Gone.

Films I wish I had avoided: Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance

Films I wish I had seen: Kill List, The Woman in Black, Chico y Rita, In Darkness, and Undefeated

So that is a roundup of February, a month normally reserved for many people catching up with the Oscar nominated film they have missed.

Part three coming soon

A Year In Review: Part One


Whilst many bought in the New Year fearing the end of the world, an upcoming election, or another natural disaster, I simply remained firmly optimistic about the many cinematic treasures 2012 would bring.

After all, this was a year that boasted the epic culmination of a superhuman cinematic saga, the final chapter in an enthralling and fully realized comic book crime tale, another encounter with the world’s most famous spy, a prequel to a seminal film in science fiction history, two films from Soderbergh, one from PTA, a Cronenberg, and a Zemeckis. Even if the world were to end, looking at that slate, one would expect 2012 would go out with a bang.

Before I go through the rather laborious run-through, it would seem fitting to document what 2012 has taught me thus far. I have learnt that my high expectations will often disappoint me, that my low expectations will surprise me, and that I am to learn this lesson every damn year.

So far this year I have been to the cinema over 150 times, this does not count in many drunken midnight movies that occur after hours at the cinema I work at, or films I have watched in a screening atmosphere in class. 5 of these instances were screaming along with an audience at The Room, probably a good 25 were repertory screenings and I’m sure there are some repeat viewings along the way (I really enjoyed 21 Jump Street). This number tells me many things; one, I probably need to start going in the sun and dating more, and two, that very little of 2012’s cinematic offerings has had an impact on me. Due to the fact that I can barely remember half of what I have seen this year I will use the aid of film-releases.com to help me wander through my year at the movies so far.

Now I should state that working in a movie theatre has afforded me the privilege and curse, of almost never having to pay for a film. Half of the films I saw this year would not have been viewed were I purchasing a ticket. However, I see watching no film as a waste of time, even the worst most putrid, clichéd, badly acted work of dredge can still teach any aspiring film maker, or enthusiast what not to make or appreciate. Having said all that, I still haven’t seen the last few Twilight movies.

It is also important to note that for the most part I am rarely very cynical when it comes to film, I seldom walk out of a theatre feeling like I have absolutely wasted my time, and can often try and see some worth in whatever film I see. I also greatly admire ambition and understand that filmmaking is a very complicated process. The result is rarely a perfect gem and thus you have to try and look for a deeper appreciation, whether it is of the intended project that never reached its fullest potential, or a certain aspect of the film that struck a chord. Sometimes a few moments of brilliance can redeem an otherwise forgettable bomb.

January

The first month of the year is always the same; catching up on the great Christmas saturation of fine films that you could not take in during the busy holiday. Young Adult, The Adventures of Tin Tin, War Horse, Melencholia, Shame – these were films rushed to release for an Oscar qualifying run, won hardly any awards and settled on paltry box office returns. Spread out through the year they might have had great success, but I digress, this article is discussing films released in 2012.

The first film I saw this year was the Mark Wahlberg, Kate Beckinsale thing called Contraband. I remember almost nothing about this, only that I saw it and tried to forget about it. My few recollections involve Wahlberg racing against time to stop his dear Beckinsale from being buried alive with cement in a construction site. The film had so little aspiration and impact that for others falling into this category I will not go into description but merely state that they were viewed.  

We Need to Talk about Kevin was a dark challenging and engaging story seen by few. We follow Tilda Swinton rebuilding her life after her son sadistically and savagely murders his father, sister and classmates. The film is uncompromising in its efforts to highlight the signs of Kevin’s condition but also the unconditional, painful love that Swinton’s character still possess for her child. The films greatest strength and most controversial aspects are found in trying to make the audience understand Kevin. Director Lynne Ramsey never manipulates us into caring about Kevin, she does something much scarier and gives us a character who is has very negative human traits. In the end this is Swinton’s film and she is captivating.

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. Even after all of the contrivances blending with the heavy subject matter and ham fisted emotion I still came out of this film enjoying it. A full recommendation? By no means, but not as sappy and over reaching as it looks, there is some elegance to it, and in the end it is quite moving.

Miss Bala’s trailer had me ready for Die Hard meets the Miss America pageant, what I got instead was an insufferable 2 hour, grim and tragic tale about a Woman having her life torn apart around her. The film is not a commentary on the tragic world of a beauty contestant or model. It is simply a girl trapped in relentlessly violent world, this film punishes it’s audience, by the end there is no relevance for our main characters journey, it is simply a very possible day in the life for this woman in this country. People may really connect with this film, it’s not for everybody and certainly wasn’t for me.

Haywire was an expected treat; Soderbergh rarely lets me down, and made a wonderful, gritty little film to start the year off right. His best composer David Holmes sets the scene for this stylish, sexy, and slick action thriller. The visuals are always enthralling, the action is real and savage and his introduction of Gina Carano as a new action film star is more than deserved. Whilst her acting chops may not be the top of field she is backed up by Channing Tatum, Michael Fassbender, Ewen McGregor, Antonio Banderas, Michael Douglas, and Bill Paxton. Few people bothered watching it and many missed out.

The Grey rounds out a mixed bag in January, as I’ve said the month is really not about new releases but there were more hits then I was expecting. Joe Carnahan’s The Grey was not Liam Neeson fighting wolves like the trailer would have you believe but rather Neeson fighting nature, and it’s still just as thrilling. The film manages to find a nice emotional tone involving the need to survive or perish to the elements. Neeson is always entertaining, especially when he can be a no-nonsense, warrior.

Films I avoided: The Devil Inside, Joyful Noise, Red Tails, Underworld: Awakening, One For the Money, and Man on a Ledge.

Films I wish I had seen: Once Upon a Time in Anatolia, Albatross, Coriolanus, and Flowers of War

Please check back soon for part two.



Looper - Is it just me or is it the most underwhelming movie of 2012?



On every underground station, motorway billboard and bus across London electric blue posters for Looper scream 'Magnificent', 'A Brilliant Masterpiece', 'The New Matrix'. Clusters of five stars surround Bruce Willis and Joseph Gordon-Levitt as they glare out steely eyed. The two most popular film publications in the UK, Total Film and Empire magazine awarded Looper five stars showering praise on Rian Johnson's sci-fi time travel mind-bender. On top of this Looper received wildly enthusiastic reviews from the most cynical of critics including The Sunday Times' Cosmo Landesman (three stars is excellent for him) and The Guardian's Peter Bradshaw - whom I have great respect for - awarded the film with four stars calling it "dizzying and exciting". So naturally after loving Brick and Joseph Gordon-Levitt in anything he does I sat down in Cineworld Shaftesbury Avenue in central London with great excitement. I left the cinema flat, baffled by the adulation and plaudits and as the last few days have passed I have grown more bewildered. 

First of all lets dispel that Matrix comparison. It is not even in the same ballpark. This is not a groundbreaking film by any stretch of the imagination: Looper is a time travel caper with a kid who could be in The Omen. The Wachowski's staggered the world in 1999 and no matter how lacklustre Revolutions was it will never be forgotten how marvellous and ingenious The Matrix is. Looper has set its ambitions at a far lesser scale but in fairness it cost $30m and the Wachowski's set a pretty damn high benchmark. 

Rian Johnson has built a futuristic dystopia in 2044 Kansas that is populated with streets of destitute homeless scavengers pushing trollies, faces blackened with hardship. Although nothing particularly new Johnson creates a world of flashy cars and clubs for the 'Loopers' (people hired to take out hits for the mob - the twist being that the victims are sent from the future where time travel has been invented and immediately made illegal (2074 to be precise) so as to erase the existence of the victims altogether). Joseph Gordon-Levitt is one of these Loopers tasked with the admittedly simple job of standing in a isolated location at an exact time and when the victim - sent back hogtied, hooded and helpless - pops out of thin air the Looper shoots, incinerates the body and collects the silver bricks tied to the victim's back. This is the currency of 2044 and is just one of the few ironic touches of satire in the movie. Bricks for money - antiquated. Some members of the population can levitate objects...but it's limited to floating quarters over their palms. There are space bikes that can fly but Paul Dano's doesn't work. In fact the city doesn't look vey different from 2012 Kansas apart from the mass poverty and desperation. Unsurprisingly the Loopers all take eyedrops that are some kind of hallucinogen and Levitt's Joe is seeing a hooker who works at the main club that is a gaudy red blot on the otherwise grey hopelessness of the city. Jeff Daniels plays Abe, the mob's man sent from the future to control operations in the past. It's a neat concept, improved by the fact that a Looper's life is fragile - the mob can close your loop at any time. And here is where the main plot comes in and perhaps the most ingenious part of Johnson's script: the said Looper is sent from the future for the young Looper to kill himself meaning that Looper knows they will die in thirty years. To soften the blow of killing yourself and living with the knowledge of when you will die. The mob kindly rewards you financially so you can live your life out in luxury wherever you want. Levitt's problem is he's let his older self escape but then that is somewhat understandable as that man is John McClane! So the plot actually isn't so complicated but it's engaging: what is Old Joe's mission? Oh the trailer has told us already sigh. Willis has returned to find the Rainmaker, some guy who is closing all the loops on Loopers in 2074. Willis's intention is to find the young boy who will become the Rainmaker and kill 'em. A messy slide to the future showing young Joe's transformation into Old Joe (Levitt to Willis) shows off a flashy Shanghai (the new 'In' location for action movies) and a bemusing romance between Willis and a Chinese woman played by Qing Xu. From this we understand Willis's intentions are not entirely selfless. 

The centrepiece scene and possibly the highlight of the movie is the conversation between Willis and Levitt at a rundown diner outside Kansas that provides witty repartee and allows Willis to flesh out his character. The idea of sitting face to face with yourself knowing them and yet not knowing them is a fascinating and deeply troubling one yet Johnson's film, from the moment the two Joe's escape the diner following an ambush, loses all momentum and intrigue. 

Levitt's young Joe finds refuge on Emily Blunt's fiery farm where she lives with her initially innocent looking nine year old boy. And this is where the film plays out its final third - amongst the corn fields of Kansas. Seemingly this would be an ideal landscape to create tension but Johnson never utilises it. Instead we cut back to Willis's Old Joe hiding out in the city pointlessly looking for the other two kids that could be the Rainmaker - pointless because it is obvious who the Rainmaker is through scenes that appear to be stolen from any number of demon child horror movies. Blunt is a tremendous actor as is Levitt but a scene in which she calls him up to her room to have sex rings hollow not to mention it feels tacked on and isn't even sexy - unforgivable considering the actors on show. 

It all ends in predictable fashion after an oddly jarring and dull shooting spree from John McClane kills basically everyone apart from Noah Segan's Kid Blue who takes on the mantle of the scorned idiot who wants revenge on Joe for humiliating him: rarely has there been a more tiresome character than this guy and the worst thing is when he comes to disrupt the final showdown between the two Joe's I just wanted the inevitable conclusion to happen so I could leave the cinema but this Kid Blue imbecile was slowing it down! 

It's hard to know what box to put Looper in because it starts in a depressing and violent fashion but the Kansas Johnson creates gets forgotten about halfway through the movie and the story isn't strong enough to allow for no visual flourishes or no surprises. When you go and see a horror movie you generally know where it's going and it's cool, you accept the genre's limitations but with Looper I wanted more than just a troubled kid with telekinesis in a field. Willis is on McClane mode only waking up to inject the diner scene with some much needed fire. Levitt does a typically good job in the main role but he's been more interesting in TDKR and Brick and far more fun in Premium Rush. Blunt devours the scenes she's given but the film drops off to such an extent when she arrives that it is hard to enjoy her performance. Jeff Daniels Abe drifts through the film whilst side characters like Paul Dano's Seth are mere plot fodder. 

Looper is a warm film in a way. Levitt carries that throughout and Blunt brings in the theme of nature versus nurture as she desperately tried to protect her boy. And yet I didn't truly care about either Joe. Levitt reveals little bits of backstory but not enough to flesh him out and as for Willis - well he's lived his life (rather unconvincingly ending up with a Chinese angel). The serious lack of humour doesn't help, apart from a running joke about young Joe learning French the script lacks bite. 

Looper is a solid film that has stolen from too many other films to feel remotely fresh. The question I always ask myself when I leave a theatre is 'Would I see this again?' and the answer to Looper is a definitive NO. Looper is a film without genuinely exciting action or inspiration: it feels like it has been sent through a loop of old films and come out the other end recycled, dull and derivative. 

Or is it just me? 


The Mystery of the Green Lantern



There are moments in the movie business when you look at a movie and think what on earth were they thinking?! Look back through history and we dredge up Greed, Heaven's Gate, The Last Movie, Ishtar, The Postman and anything starring Dane Cook. We can forgive the seventies and eighties as studios were run by enthusiastic 'artists' and then clueless businessmen but in the current era where money is at a premium and studios are so horrendously careful that many movies become unrecognisable from one another it is hard to accept a multi million dollar bomb. Sure there are disappointments like Watchmen, The Spirit and unmitigated disasters like Mars Need Moms (one of the most embarrassing concepts ever committed to film) but there is one movie that fascinates me just for the fact that I cannot comprehend how it even got optioned. That movie is Green Lantern.

Now Green is a bad colour in comic book movies - both adaptations of the Incredible Hulk flopped and were poor films whilst The Green Hornet scraped its money back only because of Michel Gondry and Jay Chou's involvement. The Green Lantern is whole different kettle of fish however.

Alongside Batman and Superman in the DC Comics cannon Green Lantern is a popular character with the comic book fraternity but one that inhabits a very different world to the famous Man in Tights and Caped Crusader. Set on the Planet Oa in outer space the Green Lantern Core act as guardians for the various sectors in the galaxy with the green power of will against the evil yellow power of fear that is portrayed through Parallax in the movie. I can understand a Warner Bros exec walking into a boardroom with this under his arm thinking we are onto something, lets plunder the DC cannon again before next years Man Of Steel and Dark Knight Rises. What I find hard to understand is how they committed $200m to it. That is a gargantuan amount for a new comic book movie. Hornet cost Sony $120m and had Seth Rogen as the lead so clearly Warner weren't alone in their idiocy. There is so much to look at here so before I get onto the movie itself lets have a look at the carnage:

- $200m budget means the movie needs to make minimum $400m worldwide to break even with promotion costs and over $500 to permit a sequel.

- Green Hornet was released six months earlier and led to confusion about what film was what.

- Green Lantern?? The fanboys don't fill up the multiplexes, the mass public are unlikely to think of a lantern as a superhero. And he's green...

- It's set in space. Which is fine if you have a director like James Cameron or Ridley Scott. Martin Campbell has a good track record of rebooting franchises but this project is too big for him.

- Due to mounting pressure and reports that the production was a disaster in the making Campbell botched together a terrible trailer of early scenes and non existent CGI that fuelled negative press and meant the film was burdened with a pessimistic outlook before release.

- The four minutes of footage unveiled at Comic Con briefly resurrected the film but the following trailer dissipated any anticipation as it spent half the two minutes explaining the Green Lantern Core. Warner Bros proved that they had no idea what to do with the movie in their marketing throwing money at it in desperate hope of explaining the concept instead of just bravely going for it. You don't want a trailer to be talky, you want action and signs that a story exists. The trailer tries so hard to simplify the film that in the end your left with nothing of interest.

- The movie is in 3-D, very little in the trailer suggested any need for seeing it in 3-D and the building resentment towards soaring ticket prices for 3-D left Lantern in the lurch.


Now the movie was lambasted by critics but is it really that bad? Lets take a look at what went right first of all:

Ryan Reynolds is perfectly cast in the titular role imbuing Hal Jordan with wit, swagger and humanity. It is a shame that his character fells so underdeveloped. I really enjoyed Hugh Jackman's performance in Real Steel, a deeply flawed guy but one who grows without losing his edge. He's believable. Reynolds' Jordan has some Daddy issues that mean he can't commit to love interest Carol Ferris (Blake Lively). A promising anti hero is submerged in platitudes and cliches as if Greg Berlitan and co (screenplay) were ordered to cram in every comic book convention going. More positives...hmm...well the CGI is cool when Jordan creates physical objects with his mind such as walls, weapons and a cool scene in which he conjures a race car and track in fluorescent green - although it looks like Tron Legacy and not as good. The first 45 minutes are fine, ok set up that builds a promising relationship between Lively and Reynolds. Sarsgaard is adequate as the scorned son of Tim Robbins senator. Reynolds has fine comic chops and delivers a few laughs. Only a few though.

The problems arise when assessing the whole. The second half of the movie is abject. The movie is far too short, under two hours for a new world and character is completely inadequate and if the screenwriters weren't trying to fit in all the usual plot conventions like the annoying friend, heroic speech (which is insipid) and back story to the villain (I say villain but Sarsgaard is nothing more than an Elephant Mn reject. The story is pitiful, why the ring chose Jordan is mystifying just as his character's transformation to hero is baffling. We never believe that his irritating scientific genius friend is anything other than an accessory and Blake Lively is so embarrassingly underused I am surprised she didn't sue. Lively claimed in interviews before ethe release that hr character was a feisty heroine in the Lois Lane mould, well she obviously saw a different movie because Carol Ferris is a damsel in distress throughout and fulfils little more than saying empty lines like 'You have the ability to overcome fear' whilst looking mildly bemused. Lively clearly thought this was a no-brainer but she must have detected her characters pointlessness in the script - sure they make her into the vice chairman of the Airforce but it all seems hollow and unbelievable. Nothing feels substantial, every character is flimsy and impossible to root for. Neither Earth or Oa matters because both are shoved so far back into the background that they look like a screensaver. Oa in particular is a perfect example of lazy use of CG: no movement, no change in colour and very little detail. People have a go at Michael Bay but at least he cares about his effects, peer into every corner of Dark of the Moon on Imax and there is wondrous attention to detail even if it is Skyscream's testicles...

It would have been so refreshing if Wanrer Bros had been brave and put a touch more faith in their audience to work things out for themselves instead of patronising and desecrating the source material. This isn't a safe project so why be so conservative and low key with it. The final action sequence is pitiful and over before you know it. Where's the bombast? Exploit the fact you have 3-D and $200m - don't just settle for mediocrity. And where did the money go?? Parallax looks fine but there isn't enough of 'him' and the action is limited. At least a Transformers film drips with dollars it looks every inch the high roller, Lantern resembles a drunken gambler on his last legs.

So what hould have happened?

I'd love to have seen Cameron or Scott take this on and create Oa using state of the art technology (with $200m you would have thought this was a prerequisite). I wanted to explore the planet, it felt so miniscule - we are introduced to the 'Elders', Sinestro (an obvious villain for the sequel with that name!), fish-head Tomar-Re and the aptly named Kilowog but barely get a glimpse of any other species on the planet. What do they think of a human wearing the ring? How do they live? Essentially Reynolds gets the powers, does a little training before leaving in a huff and then decides to save Earth for no ther reason than the movie needs a conclusion and he kinda wants to band Blake Lively in his green suit.

I was thinking of Guillermo Del Toro and his incredible set creation and use of make up and prosthetics that keeps the budget down. It would have benefitted the creatures on Oa greatly as they all look like holograms. I enjoy the irony that most of Lantern looks like Green screen.

What should have happened:

- Cut the needless backstory of Sarsgaard's Hector Hammond. Cut him altogether. Lets have a real villain and a genuine threat to Earth and Oa. Parallax is too abstract to be remotely bothered by so instead of dredging out a substandard Mars Attacks reject why not show some guts and create a nemesis that can stand against Hal Jordan. Keep Blake Lively bu give her some juice, some action so she isn't superfluous. Explore Jordan's commitment phobia and its links to his Dad, don't just mention it and move on. Leave the conclusion open to set the sequel on Oa and not just the Fantastic Four lite post credits 'Oh he's a bad guy in the next one'. Scrap the 3-D and make a real space epic.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Sadly Green Lantern will be remember as one of those comic book adaptation mistakes alongside Daredevil, Elektra and those other Green dude who gets unreasonably angry...

Fall - A Time For Cinema



It may be that time of year where the leaves fall and the mornings are frosty but it also signals a bright and illuminating time ahead in the enchanting landscape of cinema. September and October are the best months for film: there is the post summer blockbuster hangover so smaller pictures get more of a chance to succeed and although many hope to be considered for award season they do not force it like so many of the buzz films released around Oscar season. Award certs are most often a letdown due to them being talked up endlessly before finally landing with a whimper in auditoriums across the world. Lets look at last years nominations for Best Picture:

Black Swan - Terrific film with standout performances from Portman, Kunis and Cassel. Aronofsky on the top of his game and belated recognition was well earned. I idolise Aronofsky, Requiem For A Dream remains my favourite film but The Wrestler and The Fountain follow closely behind.

The Fighter - An average picture with very little punch or bite. The boxing scenes are tame and dull as the unconvincing Wahlberg desperately tries to keep up with method man Bale. Adams and Leo are fine but Oscar nominees???? Come on! Raging Bull this is not. Nor is it as exciting or affecting as Rocky. Aronofsky was originally tied to the project but thought it to similar to The Wrestler. Brad Pitt was in the lead role...the mind boggles at how great that could have been...

The Kings Speech - Don't get me wrong I loved this movie. Firth is well deserving of his Oscar but Best Picture? It is a wonderful family film but certainly not life affirming.

The Social Network - Fantastic film. Should have won Best Picture. A movie of our times from a great director.

Inception - A magnificent blockbuster.

Toy Story 3 - A perfect conclusion to the beloved Pixar trilogy.

The Kids Are All Right - Layered, character driven movie that moves and entertains in equal measure.

True Grit - The Coen's on form once more.

Winters Bone - Excellent indie effort with breakout performance from Jennifer Lawrence.

127 Hours - Awe-inspiring, frenetic and addictive.

Only four of the ten films listed were released around awards season and only two merited their place. Ok maybe I am being harsh on TKS but would I see it again? I really doubt it. Anyway moving on, in general the majority of films released to get recognition are most often disappointments. Fall is the time for iconic cinema. The only proof that is needed is right here...

Drive - Nicolas Winding Refn's stupendously stylish and exhilarating picture starring Ryan Gosling. Electrifying car chases, bone crunching violence and the best score of all time. Hyperbole? I had to pinch myself in the cinema, everything clicked. It was immensely satisfying and totally absorbing yet also fresh, heavily stylised and open ended. With such remarkable forward momentum in Refn's direction contrasting with the laconic mysterious Driver played by Gosling the film contains many contradictions - the plot is cliche (Driver has to save girl he loves by taking a heist) but it is done with such panache and unexpected flourishes of claret and humanity that you are hooked. All this to a sombre score from Cliff Martinez that throbs and ebbs as Driver traverses the neon streets of LA. What separates Drive from so many other 'cult' pictures (Blade Runner I am talking to you) is the depth of character portrayed. Carey Mulligan and Gosling's relationship is so subtle it is barely detectable, they share small glances, tentative smiles and gentle brushes of the hand whilst Driver drives her wordlessly around the faceless blocks of Los Angeles. An affecting and exhilarating masterpiece.

Melancholia - The return of Lars Von Trier. Forget the Hitler nonsense that was taken way out of proportion. Lars is a genius who does not care what people think, he likes to shock but there is genuine talent behind the bluster. Melancholia is a case in point, casting Kirsten Dunst as the newlywed battling crippling depression was a masterstroke. In typical Lars fashion we open with a five minute Prologue of extraordinary images that foreshadow later events set to Wagner. It doesn't quite reach the pomposity of Antichrist's Prologue but it runs a close second. It is startling cinema nonetheless. Part One follows Dunst painfully trying to stave off the pressing despair that engulfs her through her wedding reception. Here Von Trier manoeuvres the hand held camera wonderfully as he captures the familial tensions between Dunst and her sister Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg) and their mother and father played with abandon by an acerbic Charlotte Rampling and a playful John Hurt. There are subplots aplenty but Dunst is the star: the camera assaults her face picking up every inflection as she tormentedly moves around the glorious grounds of the manor house and its unique 18 hole golf course - something Claire's husband John (Kiefer Sutherland) is only too keen to remind her of. Sutherland injects real humour into proceedings and loosens the film somewhat from taking itself too seriously. Part Two does little in that regard as the looming planet Melancholia approaches Earth and the impending apocalypse nears. Melancholia itself if beautifully rendered through superb CG effects, a gigantic glowing ball of glorious light and danger. Part Two is titled 'Claire' and Gainsbourg once again goes under the Von Trier treatment. Whilst Dunst becomes stronger through her despair as she accepts death, Claire struggles to cope with her fear and fretfully looks for support from her science obsessed husband, bewildered young son and the cold accepting sister. Just as he did with Dunst Von Trier doesn't let the characters breathe - they are stuck in a hellish claustrophobia that envelops the audience with them. No cutaways to news reports or events in other areas of the world, just four people in a remote country manor. By keeping it small we feel trapped with them, we sense the foreboding Melancholia and are overwhelmed by the hopelessness of it all. Dunst speaks of Earth being evil and 'No one will miss it' - I found this shattering, such pessimism is so against the usual Hollywood apocalypse fare that sees faith in God or humanity strengthened. Dunst may be suffering from severe depression but is completely calm in the midst of death. As Claire crumbles she takes on the mantle of reassuring Claire's son. The finale is staggering: Wagner raised to 11 the screen practically forces you back like a tornado leaving you stunned and shattered. The exhaustion I felt after this movie was unreal, Von Trier zaps every sense in the human body and does so without any 3-D in sight illustrating the pointlessness of the technology - I have never felt a movie so close, so suffocating that I have felt visibly shaken and drenched in every last drop of the image. A triumph.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy - Tomas Alfredson (Let The Right One In) directs the finest British ensemble cast outside of HP in this mood piece set in the offices of MI6 (The Circus) during the Cold War. Based on John Le Carre's novel it will inevitably gather comparisons with Alec Guiness's version for the BBC and although the confusing and sometimes dour plot to uncover the traitor amongst The Circus's ranks was better served by the BBC series, Alfredson succeeds on a whole other level. An almost monochrome palette sets the backdrop for the death of Britain and her power as the old guard of Gary Oldman, John Hurt and Colin Firth realise the world is changing and will never be the same. A fascinating watch, Oldman is a revelation as Smiley deceiving all in his wake with his largely silent exterior that hides an ice cold interior.

The Guard - John Michael McDonagh's film has clear links to his brother Martin's In Bruges; acerbic tongues, borderline humour, small town randomness and a deceptively hidden heart. Now, it never reaches the heights of Colin Farrell's career rebirth but it stands out on its own merit. This is largely down to a towering show from Brendan Gleeson as the police chief of Barna (tiny village in Galway) investigating a massive drug smuggling ring. Gleeson infuses warmth, wit and unpredictability into Sergeant Gerry Boyle: he is a character defined by Don Cheadle's FBI detective's assertion 'I can't figure out if you're really clever or just really stupid'. Cheadle and Gleeson bounce off each other brilliantly as racial jibes ping around. This is an immensely satisfying film and that is the greatest commendation you can give a movie.

Kill List - Ben Wheatley's sophomore effort is a headfuck, plain and simple. Initially appearing to be a simple kitchen sink Brit drama that then meshes into a hitmen for hire with some buddy comedy thrown in. And then. Well then it goes weird. As Jay (Neil Maskell) becomes more and more unpredictable the film drifts in and out of consciousness sucking us into a hallucinogenic state of terror. Unsettling characters flit in and out whilst strong bloody violence erupts as Jay loses control. The final twenty minutes scared the life out of me as we enter a world of Pagan rituals. An extremely effective score that whistles and moans never lets up the foreboding. Certainly the best Brit film of the year....

Of course Tyrannosaur and We Need To Talk About Kevin are released in the next fortnight so this could change but for pure ambition Kill List comes up trumps.

Cinema - The Massive Con


I recently questioned why theatre was so expensive, this was before I saw Billy Elliot on Broadway and witnessed the spectacle of a three hour show encompassing dozens of performers intricately dancing in perfectly choreographed routines whilst singing and acting. The stage design and the lighting, the orchestra, the upkeep of the glorious theatre that glowers with history and a proud sense of individuality. As many as twelve performances a week live on Broadway, in Toronto and London all year round. It is phenomenal, suddenly the steep ticket price seems rather fair, how many times can you visit the cinema and watch a three hour motion picture? And I am talking about a proper three hour picture, not Michael Bay's ludicrously long Transformers films.


I can think of a few examples; Magnolia, Once Upon A Time In The West or America for that matter and for sheer spectacle Avatar in 3D. Some may say Titanic. I would not. After frequenting the marvellous multiplexes in Sofia, Bulgaria this summer for no more than £6 I have begun to wonder how cinemas in London can charge such ludicrous prices.

Now I know London is obviously going to cost more than Bulgaria but to be almost double the ticket prices in Hong Kong, Auckland, New York and Stockholm? I could go on but my main question is: Why should we accept such poor standard screens and service when we pay more?

Lets start off with Odeon. I went to see Friends With Benefits on Sunday at Odeon Tottenham Court Road (central London) and stood for twenty minutes as the cinema failed to open until 1pm for the 1.15pm showing. I accept that cinemas earn most of their revenues from concessions such as popcorn, snacks and soft drinks but at least have a separate counter for it, instead all multiplexes cut staff and sell tickets jointly with food and drink thus a long hold up in the queues. It's a recession so cuts are necessary I hear you say. Ok. I would argue that better management would mean two members of staff dealing with tickets and one member with snacks. That was how many staff there were at Odeon on the Sunday anyway. The prices are as following.

Adult ticket - £9.15 (Monday to Thursday before 5pm) otherwise £12.30.
Child (12 or Under) - £7.50 (Monday to Thursday before 5pm) otherwise £9.60
Family (1 adult and 3 children or 2 adults 2 children) - £30 (M to Th before 5pm) otherwise £38.

I'm going to be brutally honest here; Tottenham Crt Road Odeon is average. It is not an attractive building neither is it in the vicinity of the West End. It has four screens, one large, one medium and two small. If there is someone in front of you then you are going to have problems seeing the screen but perhaps worst of all is the soundproofing; in all the screens you can hear the movie next door! Unacceptable. So during FWB (a very cool comedy) I could hear The Inbetweeners next door - Jay was busy getting bullied by a kid.

Lets move onto pricing, in particular the issue of child pricing. Apparently you stop being a kid at 12 at Odeon. Consequently they have brought in the Teen Ticket for 13 to 17 year olds. My sister who is 15 came to see FWB and was refused a Teen ticket because she had no ID (in England you do not have ID before you're 15 unless you bring your passport). After some haggling and a look at the queue the manager gave in, she would have been fine giving her an adult ticket but not a Teen. In the end things worked out but why not increase the child ticket to 14 and put teen 15 to 17 then you save the problem of under 15's seeing 15 cert pictures. Money of course. But it makes no sense, if you are 13 or 14 you can't by law see a 15 film so why should you have to pay extra to see 12 cert or under movies? But then that is nonsense too as the Teen ticket is only 20p more! To save all the hassle just let kids be kids until they are fifteen. Like they do at Cineworld Cinemas.

Ah Cineworld. The worst chain in Britain. Cineworld take self advertising to another level, buy a Coke, get the membership card (between each trailer) and then an advert on Cineworld itself talking of the experience. Wow. I want to draw attention to Shaftesbury Avenue branch of Cineworld. What is cool about Cineworld are their Earlybird prices. These used to be £6.00, sadly they have risen to £8.

Adult - £8.00 (before 5pm Monday to Friday) otherwise £12.00
Child (up to 14 years of age) - £6.90

This appears fair. The absence of a family ticket is odd as is the assertion that a 15 year old is an adult. No Teen ticket at Cineworld. So apparently my brother is an adult as he has no ID to show he is a student (£6.90 before 5pm Monday to Friday...no student tickets on weekends...). So what is he? Twice I have haggled with the obnoxious staff there eventually asking for the manager ( a weak man befitting of his pathetic staff) and managed to get my brother a child ticket. The film in question was Arrietty the Studio Ghibli animation rated U. Yes, they were trying to charge a 15 year old an adult ticket for a U cert picture! The most prominent issue with Cineworld Shaftesbury Avenue is there scheduling and pricing. They play movies before 12pm, some as early 11.15am to empty auditoriums (Arrietty for example was just us, if we had not gone the movie would have played to no-one) which raises the question, do cinemas care about film? A couple of years ago Cineworld used to charge as little as £5.50 for a film before 12pm and numbers were healthy, since the price increase to £8 this has dramatically changed. If the cinema was any good I could understand it but it makes Odeon look like the plush Empire West End. Finding a member of staff as you climb the escalator to the three floors above the ticket office is nigh on impossible making it completely possible to go and see another film for free, I know plenty who do it. And the mishaps! Oh yes lets list 'em -

Definitely Maybe - Upside down credits and out of focus picture, projectionist clearly has fallen asleep.

27 Dresses (it's not that bad...honest!) - Film stops, then continues without sound for a couple of minutes. I don't know how this is possible...

The A-Team - Movie doesn't start. Wait for ten minutes until projectionist is called, movie starts 30 minutes late. Add that to the bloated running time of the frankly dreadful movie and you really are taking the proverbial...

I can truthfully say that I have never gone to Cineworld and not had some problem. Watchdog (BBC investigative consumer programme) recently found that Cineworld charge the most for popcorn and other concessions in a survey carried out on all multiplexes. Popcorn is nearly £5. A kid of six made her own popcorn to take in but got it confiscated before going into the cinema! I always take food and drink in, ever since paying £3.50 for a medium sized Fanta at Cineworld I have steered clear of the eye watering prices.

The system in which cinemas work of course is to pay the distributor for the film for a set amount of time whilst the majority of receipts go directly to the studios thus meaning the film itself is simply a product to get people to spend money on concessions at the cinema. Managers and staff at the multiplexes are not interested in the movies they show, just the amount of popcorn they sell. None more so than Vue cinemas.

Vue is a mixed bag. Great screens, sound and picture on the one hand. Understaffed, expensive and unfriendly on the other. Vue do offer a Teen ticket for 13 -18 year olds and at the Islington Vue (North London) prices are fair with Adults paying a maximum of £11.25 and with Saver tickets throughout the week a family can go for under £20. Finchley Road in North-West London thinks it is acceptable to charge the same price as well as charging more for the family ticket despite its location and inept management.

But lets move to the West End and the hilarious Vue situated within metres of Leicester Square tube station.

Adult £13.25
Child £8.10
Student £10.70

I don't have a problem with Empire West End or Odeon Leicester Square charging similar prices as they boast the two best screens in London. What irks me with Vue is there dark and dingy cinema that boasts average screens with hard seats and budget sound. Of course tourists pay it as do many others who enjoy being fleeced.

During the recession cinema has boomed. In 2010 an MPAA report showed that in the States a family day out to the cinema was the cheapest option at $30. Compared to a NFL match that costs in the region of $300 or an NBA game at $180 it does appear to be good value. In my opinion there is no comparison to a sporting event and the thrill of seeing your team but cinema can be truly awe inspiring and for the relatively cheap price very good value.

Cinema around the rest of the UK is fairly priced, Odeon cinemas in Belfast, Edinburgh and Cardiff ticket prices do not exceed £9 even at peak times. The same is true for multiplexes on the outskirts of London which are generally higher quality screens and sound.

I expect to pay more if I am in central London but is it too much to ask for proper service and quality? The Curzon and Phoenix chains that are directed to the art house market show that it is possible to care for the customer and film itself, something most definitely lacking in multiplexes such as Cineworld and Vue. Curzon Soho and Mayfair boast superior sound, picture and service yet remain cheaper than Cineworld Haymarket and Shaftesbury Avenue at off-peak times, make sense of that one.

A complete overhaul is needed. For those who have spare time around midday and early afternoon prices must be dropped otherwise you lose the potential customer to enjoy another activity instead such as the gym, shopping or an extra long lunch. The industry complains of losses, piracy and dwindling box office (2011 has been a bit of a downer at the US box office) yet if they continue to rip customers off with average product and service from the exhibitors then what do they expect? We all know 3-D was simply a ploy to stop piracy and I really don't mind if the quality of the third dimension is like Avatar but to blatantly laugh in peoples faces with the pitiful excuse for 3-D that is 95% of movies out this year (Thor, Captain America, Green Lantern, Pirates 4 etc) then you really have gone too far. The current system will only make piracy worse, what needs to happen is more power has to be given to each manager of each cinema within the chain. Those managers must have enthusiasm for film as must the staff (Oxford Odeon's benefit greatly from employing students) and each manager should be able to have some freedom to change the scheduling, pricing and the general running of the cinema thereby making each branch within the large multiplex tree feel personal and dedicated to that area. Wishful thinking....?


THE EPIC FILM JOURNAL - DAY THIRTY NINE

Film Number 43 – Law Abiding Citizen

Gerard Butler is a top engineer, happily married with a daughter. His entire life is changed within the first 5 minutes of the film when his home is invaded and his wife and child are raped and murdered. After this shocking opening the two men responsible for the murders are on trial. It turns out that only one of the men was responsible for the murders but unfortunately that killer has made a deal with the courts to frame the other man for the crimes. As there is no evidence to convict the actual killer he goes free whilst the other guy goes on death row the. Enter Jamie Foxx a top District Attorney who is responsible for this strange verdict Butler is furious he leaves and the killer is given a jail sentence.

We jump to ten years later, the guy on death row is given a lethal injection that is tampered with and he dies in agonizing pain, whilst the other guy is set free, Butler tracks him down and cuts him into pieces. You see for the last ten years Butler has been planning the ultimate revenge on everyone that has wronged him and his family. What follows is a series of expertly planned attacks and double crosses by Butler who is doing it all from jail.

You have to give the film a lot of credit it cuts all the bullshit and jumps straight into the story; unfortunately there are two big problems. The first being Jamie Foxx, his character is completely unlikable, there isn’t really one point during the entire film when we actually want him to succeed. His delivery is fine but there is no energy or charisma to latch on to. He does however deliver my favorite line in the film, when Butler is in jail and requests his last meal he starts listing all the stuff he wants – “I’ll take the stake and the potatoes with the broccoli, gravy and pomme frites” to which Foxx responds “fuck you and your pomme frites” it doesn’t get much better than that.

The films plot becomes incredibly convoluted but it doesn’t really require too much attention, it just keeps going and going the conversations between the two are more and more tedious. Then when we think the film is out of steam a bunch of people are stayed to death by a giant tommy gun and Butler kills his cell mate by stabbing him in the neck with a steak bone. The violence in this is brutal and realistic, mostly horrible to watch. The problem is that after a while we can’t really be sympathetic for anyone, Butler becomes too brutal to be relatable and Foxx was kind of unlikable from the start. It feels a bit like a film that would get made in the seventies, gritty and violent.

In the end the film is pretty unrewarding to watch, it’s a cold story with little humanity, about twenty minutes too long thanks to character development for characters that we don’t care about.

4 and a half out of 10

THE EPIC FILM JOURNAL - DAY THIRTY EIGHT

Film Number 42 – A Big Hand for the Little Lady

A poker movie from 1966 today, the film concerns an annual card game in a small town where the five richest men get together and play for high stakes. They stop everything in their in their life for the game, one man stops his daughter’s wedding, a lawyer stops the closing case quickly to run away. As the game begins a small family Henry Fonda, Joanne Woodward and their son enter the barn looking for a place to stay. Unfortunately this long exposition before they get to game takes ages; a good seven to eight minutes of the five men traveling across the giant landscapes went on far too long and hurt the beginning of the film. When they get to the barn the card game is set up wonderfully the entire town’s folk gather to the barn to watch and share stories about the games’ infamy.

Henry Fonda takes a drink ends up meeting one of the players, they form a quick little friendship and the man allows him to go and watch the game, whilst watching the man realizes that these players are terrible. Fonda asks them if they can play, they agree but tell him that they play western style rules that is, if you can’t match the bet because you don’t have the money, you’re out. Ignoring his sons huge protests Fonda goes and digs into the family savings to enter the game, the action carries on Fonda’s money goes down so he clears out the family savings, sure that he can beat these people. They play until he gets the monster hand, but as he looks around everyone else seems to break their poker face in the same way. Unfortunately Fonda is nearly out of money and the bet has gone up, he puts up his watch, his horse and cart and then he makes his son watch the cards to go and get a loan from the bank.

Fonda faints, the wife takes over, the stakes get higher, and she has to try and raise more money. I’ll stop the plot here because it does get pretty fun and I don’t want to ruin it. The scenes of poker are very tame compared to what we’ve seen in films like Rounder’s; it’s almost a farcical game the obvious poker faces and silly bets, but it is fun, all the characters work so well together. The actors all have their fun quirks and qualities that make them entertaining and watchable. Fonda is a compulsive gambler, it is heartbreaking to watch him put his family’s life savings on the line. The dialogue is seamless blends in perfectly and is nice and snappy. My main problems with the film is that it takes a long time to get into the premise the film just kind of meanders around the game building up this almost godly competition that turns out to be just a very simple card game. The acting is great Henry Fonda is charming to watch we have so much empathy for him as just a simple man who is incredibly weak but also is doing it to try and better his family’s financial situation. The ending is pretty wonderful and it has been emulated so many times over the last ten years that I’d be surprised if it hits anyone of this generation very hard.

I feel ashamed saying this and it goes against my usual way of thinking but I would say that this film is completely ripe for a remake. I’m picturing a kind of It’s a mad mad mad world tale where the card game happens at the beginning is completely superfluous and just a very simple backdrop to the real story of the wife going around town trying her best to raise the money for the game.

The film isn’t brilliant but it is also much better than half of the comedies that we see today. A very misleading poster as well.

7 out of 10

THE EPIC FILM JOURNAL - DAY THIRTY SEVEN

Film Number 41 – Zero Effect

Beginning with all the coolness of the usual Conman film, we are introduced to Ben Stiller’s character a well educated man working for one of the world’s most infamous private detectives – the paranoid socially inept Darryl Zero (Bill Pullman). Ben Stiller is the assistant of this highly eccentric detective, we are told early on about all of his quirks and skills, Zero is a complete social recluse shutting himself away from the world in an apartment with a complex security system on the top floor of a giant building. He takes on a new intricate blackmail case from a tycoon played by Ryan O’Neil, the mission takes Zero on a series of twists and turns, he falls in love with a girl and solves the complicated case.

I won’t go too much into the plot so I can avoid spoiling it, the script is really fun, very witty and sharp dialogue, the characters are all quite captivating. Zero is a master at reading people and Pullman plays it perfectly with the right amount of bizarre nuance to separate him from every other master mind that we’ve seen on film. The only real fault of this character is that there is a lot of introduction and establishment and it does stop the story from jumping in at the beginning. The plot stays very idle in the middle when Zero starts a relationship, it’s interesting to watch but the film defiantly stays in this moment for far too long, it was important to set up this relationship but it needed to be smoother and more intertwined to the mission.

The other problem is that as the film progresses the character of Darryl Zero become so interesting and rich that no other character holds your attention. They all are strongly overshadowed by Pullman’s weird eccentricities and it kind of makes the main plot thread that isn’t about Zero a bit of a side note. The film looses it’s suave stylistic tone from the beginning and becomes more about the characters, the problem is that the film still insists on showing these long cool hip scenes of people walking with tight synchronization and by this point they have lost their effect. The plotting becomes slightly convoluted as well but it is still more than acceptable, some of the best moments are listening to Zero writing his memoirs/ journal reflecting on the case and the many new feelings he experience.

The film maybe suffers from trying to be too clever and complex, it looses the focus heading into the third act and manages to get it back right at the end. Great music choices throughout adds to the fun slick nature of the film. Ben Stiller is enjoyable as Arlo the assistant but he really is just playing it very straight, Kim Dickens is the love interest, her damaged, strong, and angry character is refreshing to watch she allows the right amount of venerability to come through to give the character empathy.

It’s an ambitious film very much about dialogue and could probably trim off ten minutes or so to help it flow but on the whole very fun enjoyable and cool.

7 and a half out of 10

THE EPIC FILM JOURNAL - DAY THIRTY SIX

Film number 40 – The Mystery Team

Fans of Derrick Comedies internet shorts have been waiting in eager anticipation for the Theatrical release of their debut film “The Mystery Team” (and by fans I mean me). The first short I saw by them was entitled “Daughters” and I’ve been hooked ever since. Unfortunately the film had a very limited release, I think it was basically one print taken around to the biggest cities, but after a year of waiting the film has finally been released on DVD.

The three main members of this comedy troupe make up the Mystery Team a group of amateur detectives that have been solving mysteries for a dime since they were seven years old. The characters are strange adult hybrids that have innocent and childish minds, going off to solve a murder the master of disguise dons a horrible fake mustache in the attempt to pass as a tycoon, sticking out his chest and talking in a comical grandiose theater voice. Most of the humor in the film is derived from these bizarre characters interacting with people who are firmly planted in the real world.

Usually when sketch comedy such as SNL tries to make the move to film it turns into a bunch of gags with a plot that has serious dips in pace and interest but Mystery Team actually works as a film, the comedy builds jokes throughout and they just get more hilarious. The characters go through wonderful transitions growing up and maturing yet still being completely oblivious to situations around them. It’s a bit like a hardcore episode of the Rugrats, just instead of Nurses and daycare centers it’s full of prostitutes and murderers in a strip club. Working out of a small stall in their front yard the Mystery Team are ready to solve almost any small blunder that has befallen the quiet suburb that they live in, they begin the film finding out who stuck their fingers inside Mrs Kibbels berry pie and move to finding out who murdered a little girl’s parents. The mystery team rides color coded bicycles with matching sneakers, they’ve never grown up each member has a special skill that they are unskillful at; the master of disguise dons wacky costumes and ridiculous personas that are completely transparent, the strongest kid in town is weak and pretends to be on the football team and the Boy Genius memorizes useless facts that he uses in the wrong situations.

The great thing about the film is that the clues that the team follow are completely nonsensical, through a series of bizarre events they actually end up going on the right path. The moments of espionage are hysterical and imaginative but also quite suspenseful; there are great scenes where the characters are in serious peril and we feel that were there with them, all the characters posses such innocence that at times you actually are worried for their safety. The acting is strong and consistent throughout; the overblown farcical characters could fall apart quite quickly but they all remain charming and entertaining. The three main actors Donald Glover, D.C. Pierson and Dominic Dierkes are all prime to be in big comedies they prove that they can go far beyond the world of sketch comedy. They all also wrote the script and it’s actually really well done the story moves well the characters are all fun and original and the film is never boring.

The supporting cast also back them up well; Park and Recreation’s Aubry Plaza is great as a romantic interest and the older sister of the orphaned girl, she’s got that kind of angry brutally down to earth funny shtick down well. Ellie Kempar from The Office is a girl version of the Mystery Team fully grown riding round the town on a Bicycle with pigtails. Action scenes are really well filmed, very thrilling and far beyond what we would expect from a comedy film with such a small budget. The dialogue is so good in the film it never feels annoying or obvious and is generally pretty surprising and different from what we usually see.

Obviously there are few weakness such as the tone being destroyed by some real gross out moments but even these are kind of funny and are usually complemented with some good dialogue anyway. Some people could easily find the film annoying and childish but the comedy works, it plays incredibly well and is very refreshing to see. It is incredibly impressive that they managed to pull this film off for such a low budget, it’s not trying to say anything profound or change lives it just wants to be entertaining and in that respect it’s a great success. We should be nurturing these comedies, rent it buy it you will laugh and it has the most foul mouthed child that you will ever see on screen.

8 out of 10

THE EPIC FILM JOURNAL - DAY THIRTY FIVE

FILM NUMBER 39 – Toy Story 3

A sequel 11 years in the making bringing a 15 year Journey to the end, today is the final part in Pixar Animation Studio’s landmark debut series, one of the most anticipated films of the year – Toy Story 3. The films premise concerns the gang of Toys dealing with their owner’s lack of interest; Andy is now 18 and about to go off to college. Andy has been slowly getting rid of his toys for years leaving only a very select few of his favorites behind which conveniently are also the fan favorites as well, I’m talking about Buzz Lightyear, Woody, Slinky, Pig, Rex, Mr and Mrs Potato Head, Jessie and Bullseye, oh and those weird three eyed alien things. So being bugged by his mother to sort all his shit out Andy opts out of taking his porn and weed to college and instead decides to bring Woody with him and put the rest of the other guys in the attic instead of donating them to charity. In a nice mix up of events all the toys and a Barbie accidently end up in a children’s daycare center where they meet a ton of new toys, including a Ken doll and the leader of the bunch an old cuddle bear named Lotso.

Woody pleads with the rest of the toys to escape with him and make it back in time to Andy’s house before he leaves for college They have three days to get back but the rest of the toys think they have a pretty sweet deal at the day care center, they haven’t been played with in years and the prospects of some human interaction are quite appealing. Lotso introduces the toys to the room they will be living in which appears nice and Woody stowaways in a child’s backpack. Woody makes it to a new house and gets help from the toys there to find a route back to Andy’s, mean while the Toys back at the day care center finally realize that they are the punchbags to the young kids who have no idea how to treat toys and just enjoy smashing, throwing and slobbering all over them. When the Toy’s try to switch rooms they find out that leader Lotso is very malevolent and bitter from being abandoned years ago by his owner. He decides to lock up the Toys imprisoning them in toy boxes and putting a giant baby doll on patrol watch.

Woody gets word of his friends peril and goes to rescue them, this results in a daring long escape sequence where the toys are almost incinerated at a trash dump, before miraculously being saved, making it back it time to Andy’s to realize that they belong with a new child that will play with them. I rush through the plot, it isn’t as complex as the first two films but it is logical and sensible, it moves at pace that we know and expect from Pixar, allowing enough character development and story to come though without overloading it. If I am to cut the story to its bare bones it really is a rehash of the second film, it’s all a big mission for the toys to rescue each other and get back to their owner. Where I feel the film differs though is that it offers a logical conclusion to the lives of these characters and that isn’t to say that we get to see these lives come to an end but we do get to see a large chapter closed. It’s similar to the end of the Matrix in that we are pretty sure at the end that the characters will go on the same path with their new owner as they did with Andy.

Toy Story 3 has too many positives to even think of it as a failure, even with this notion I would say that it was the weakest of the 3 and I don’t think that is a bad thing. I mean who really says that a trilogy has to end with a giant epic conclusion; all we really want is a tidy ending for the characters that we have become attached with. In this film Pixar have paid attention to so many small details that have all worked perfectly; it seems as if every element was picked for the maximum effect. Every voice is perfect, the old favorites such as John Ratzenberger as Hamm, Don Rickles and Estelle Harris as mr and Mrs Potato Head, Wallace Shaun as Rex and of course Tom Hanks and Tim Allen as Woody and Buzz are great and entertaining to hear again. There are also some great new additions; Michael Keaton as Ken is wonderful, all the right enthusiasm and the cheesy pitch that we would expect from a Ken Doll. Ned Beaty is well cast as the evil Lotso bear, you can sense something strange about him from the start but it is subtle enough to dismiss. It is also a true testament to the integrity of Pixar that they don’t rely on these voices to sell the film, their Dreamworks counterparts always seem far too enthusiastic to highlight the expensive voice actors that they managed to get. Pixar pick the right voice for the right character and it always works very effectively, never feels out of place and is generally quite memorable.

The quality of animation has also reached entirely new heights; I saw the film in 3-d and whilst I can’t say that it is necessary to view in this format at all I did feel like the 3-d added a great depth of field to the shots. Another huge plus with the film was the amazing camera movement, yes granted there is no camera but every shot moves so perfectly allowing every action scene to be observed fully by the viewer leaving no moments of unsynchronized awe (something most normal films are still unable to handle). Pixar have this great skill of being able to emulate the perfect shot and movement for a scene, a big example being the dance scene during the closing credits, every close up and pan is spot on. Randy Newman’s music creates a wonderful backdrop to throughout, he has obviously re-recorded some tracks and he throws more emotion in than ever before.

It’s funny I always expected myself to be very excited about this film but as soon as I saw the first trailer my interest was lost. I knew the film was on its way and I wasn’t excited until the lights went down and the short film “Night and Day” began, I relised that I was almost sad to watch these characters go. This feeling is prominent throughout the film, when is it ok to hang on to something when do have to finally give something away? It’s a heavy issue that hits deep and watching the film I felt like Andy I’m glad to see these characters journey come to an end because one more venture with them would definitely be one too many. Pixar are very successful about making you feel like a child again whilst delivering a nice heavy message that puts you into a huge state of personal reflection, people could talk for hours about why their films manage to resonate with such a large audience but in the end it probably just comes down to the fact that they are full of so much heart.

They believe in putting on a good show and so far this year I’d say no one does it better.

9 out of 10

THE EPIC FILM JOURNAL - DAY THIRTY FOUR

Film Number 38 – Please Give

An independent comedy today directed by Nicole Holofcener who made 2006’s Friends with Money. Now I didn’t see that film but money seems to be a very big theme for this director, Please Give is essentially a movie all about the many types of white guilt that can exist. Kate (Catherine Keneer) and Alex (Oliver Platt) run a furniture store in New York where they buy used stuff at estate sales then research the piece and hike up the price astronomically. Even with this successful enterprise Kate is very wary about giving her angry teen daughter Abby (Sarah Steele) horrendous sums of money like other well off parents. To make herself feel a bit better Kate does her best to help homeless people out, gives to charities and constantly tries to help at youth groups and just general be a decent person. To further add to their entrepreneurial actions Kate and Alex decide to buy their neighbors’ apartment to knock through and create a luxury place. The only catch is that the tenant, a bitter angry old women called Andra, will not leave the apartment until she dies. Her health has been deteriorating for years and she has been helped by her granddaughter Rebecca (Rebecca Hall). Rebecca spends her days working as a breast cancer reduction technologist in a very depressing clinic; she seems full of good ethics and morals and spends her lonely days caring for her miserable grandmother. Her sister Mary (Amanda Peet) is nearly the complete antithesis, self centered, mean, cruel, bitter, rude and unaware.

As the film progresses the overweight aging Oliver Platt cheats on his wife and begins an affair with the gorgeous young Amanda Peet. Now this is a pretty hard jump to make in this plot, they try to give Peet some motivation for the affair by having her recently dumped by a boyfriend but it is very hard to believe that she has no better option then having an affair with this man. This is really the only part that’s a bit hard to grasp, the good thing however is that Platt doesn’t really have a clue why he is having the affair. This is a real strength of the film, it could easily be clichéd if they had a horribly dysfunctional marriage and home life but this family actually seems very happy and it makes the predicament all the more realistic and confusing.

The whole film is full of bittersweet and touching moments that are hard for me in my caveman state of being to touch on why I felt the pain or the joy. There is a particular instance where Catherine Keneer goes to volunteer with a group dealing with disabled children, whilst there she is unable to contain herself and bursts into tears, rather than have her tell us why she is sad all the power is allowed to come from the actions. Rebecca Hall’s beautiful and depressed character is allowed to come out of her shell and find a boyfriend and feel more confident, this is handled so beautifully and sweetly as well and never gets artificial. Whilst Peet’s character begins the way she started with very little personal growth, certainly makes a change from the barrage of epiphanies within the film and cinema in general.

The film moves at a decent pace and when the old lady finally dies it’s very refreshing that we are not dragged down in this moment for eternity and the story moves on in a timely fashion. Of course the film defiantly aims to throw a great deal of questions, points and messages to the viewer, nothing really hit me very hard and I actually think that’s a good thing, I’m getting kinda sick of films that revel in making the audience feel as guilty as possible for whatever privileges that they have in life. The film also shares an important message that shitty things are always going to be in the world and that we can’t solve them all, we get to see Kate’s life ruled by her guilt, every action she makes is marred with its effect on others, she is constantly stressed and worried all the time.

A real character study here, not something where I can really talk about dynamic filmmaking, it serves its purpose as a thought provoking and entertaining little indie comedy. Whilst I do not agree with every single message put forward I can really respect the ways that it does show the ideas in a subtle respectful nature. Acting is all very high quality honestly can’t pull a bad name out of the hat, everyone put their best in and made it work.

7 out of 10

Copyright © 2008 - FilmLead - is proudly powered by Blogger
Smashing Magazine - Design Disease - Blog and Web - Dilectio Blogger Template