Snoopcallymac's blog

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - The Veteran

2012-02-01T07:37:00.000-08:00

Directed by: Matthew Hope

Produced by: Debbie Shutar

Kim Leggatt

Screenplay by: Matthew Hope

Robert Henry Craft

Story by: Matthew Hope

Starring: Toby Kebbell

Brian Cox

Adi Bielski

Music by: Mark Delaney

Cinematography by: Philipp Blaubach

Editing by: Emma Gaffney

Studio: DMK Productions

Release date(s): April 29, 2011

Running time: 98 minutes

Country: United Kingdom

Language: English

Alright, another little update here. This review will followed by one for Drive, which will be my last full review for a film in 2011, because I want to make time for my best and worst of the year. In taking this decision, I will not be doing a 'Movie of the Month' for January. Nevertheless, I am continuing to watch films, having seen Senna and Troll Hunter today, and I will gather all of these films into a collection of five-line 'capsule' reviews for the rest of these films, and they will be eligible for inclusion in my best and worst of 2011. All that's is left to say is keep your eyes posted!

The film that is standing before The Central Scrutiniser (one for the Zappa fans!) is Matthew Hope's The Veteran. My chance encounter with this film was just that, so I will give y'all a little context on the matter. I rented out four DVDs from my local Xtravision in Holywood, Drive, Troll Hunter, Senna and Insidious. However, as I was about to watch Insidious, I found that the DVD I was given was not the one I had in mind, but instead The Veteran. After a few minutes of much grumbling and deliberation, I did a little research and found that The Veteran was a film released in 2011, so I thought "what the hey" and decided to review it. Toby Kebbell, who made his screen debut as the mentally challenged younger brother of Paddy Considine's army veteran Richard in Shane Meadows' excellent 2003 film Dead Man Shoes, switches shoes and plays the eponymous 'Veteran' soldier. Robert Miller (Kebbell) has returned from Afghanistan to his London council housing estate, only to find it overrun with drugs and gun-crazy youths. Through his ex-army friend Danny (Tom Brooke), he gets work for Danny's brother Chris (Tony Curran) and Gerry (Brian Cox) in undercover surveillance investing a network of suspected terrorist cells.

To start with what is good about The Veteran, I must focus on the central performance by Toby Kebbell. One of England's most versatile young actors, he is completely believable as the film's protagonist. The subtlety of his acting shows his character to be emotionally restrained, and the pent-up intensity of his expressions had me thinking of Robert de Niro and Peter Mullan. Furthermore, it is easy to get behind him from an audience perspective, for despite the restrained emotions and physical situations his character gets into, he remains a sympathetic figure. Also, there is a fine polish to the film's cinematography. Philipp Blaubach does a good job of making a London council estate look like a battlefield, and shoots the various going-ons of Miller with a visual flair. The film's editor Emma Gafney is generous to Blaubach, deciding to let many of the shots continue for longer than the average shot length, placing the emphasis on performance and the mobile camera. Finally, Matthew Hope handles the film very well, and makes a number of strong artistic decisions. For instance, his direction ensures that all-round, this is a well-told film based on the principle of visual storytelling. This is some strong work, and I would be interested to see where hope goes from here.

However, while I like this, there are a few problems that stop it from being more than a good film. Sonically, while I like some of the more bass-heavy beats as themes for some of the more 'action' based sequences, I found myself getting cross at the hint of a guest appearance by the Emotional Heartstrings Orchestra, because there is no excuse for a film that tells a good visual story to have the music overtly attempt to reinforce the point. Regardless, the film's central problem is that it suffers from an identity crisis. I'm not comparing it to other films, but in order to get my point across I will invoke two specific ones. On the one hand, Kebbell's Miller is an intense character who is disgruntled at the injustice in his estate, and as such this arc of the story is similar to Taxi Driver. On the other, the film is a conspiracy thriller not unlike the Bourne movies. While both of these separate aspects would work alone, I think both together do not, and it as a result, it does not succeed in being worthy of either Taxi Driver and the Bourne franchise.

Despite these problems that give the film an identity crisis and a problematic score, both of which threaten to throw the finished work into overkill, I liked The Veteran. Toby Kebbell gives a very good lead role, technically it is well-made, with an almost experimental emphasis on visual storytelling, which makes the film's setting come across not just as the proverbial battlefield, but also a dystopian nightmare. Furthermore, I think Matthew Hope shows great promise as a director, for The Veteran is a stylistically interesting film, which he has handled with care and is worth at least one watch.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 6.2/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Good (got a lot done today!)

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - The Artist

2012-01-30T14:43:00.000-08:00

Directed by: Michel Hazanavicius

Produced by: Thomas Langmann

Screenplay by: Michel Hazanavicius

Starring: Jean Dujardin

Berenice Bejo

Music by: Ludovic Borce

Cinematography by: Guillaume Schiffman

Editing by: Anne-Sophie Bion

Michel Hazanavicius

Studio(s): La Petite Reine

ARP Selection

Distributed by: Warner Bros. (France)

The Weinstein Company (United States)

Wild Bunch (Worldwide)

Release date(s): May 15, 2011 (Cannes Film Festival)

October 12, 2011 (France)

December 30, 2011 (United Kingdom)

January 20, 2012 (United States)

Running time: 100 minutes

Country: France

Language: Silent (English intertitles)

Production budget: $15 million (estimated)

Box office revenue (as of publication): $40, 883, 232

Ah hoy hoy, my readership, how doth thou go? That's good, as for myself, while the slowing on the review front would indicate a certain laziness (and I must freely admit it), however I have been watching a number of movies and have a pile that keeps seeming to get bigger. As such, I have now seen The Veteran and Drive, and will be watching Troll Hunter, Senna, Insidious, Albert Nobbs, Beginners, Conan, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and The Descendants, so needless to say I'll be busy! In keeping with these sentiments, the only thing left for me on the matter is to keep your eyes posted!

So, the movie up for digestion today is The Artist, the film which seems to have stolen just about everyone's heart. The success that this film has achieved, being a French-made silent film that has received awards at the Cannes Film Festival and the Golden Globes (why I appease the idea that they are an award ceremony of any significance, I do not know), and has received numerous nominations from the BAFTAs, the French Cesars and the Academy Awards. As a fan of the silent film medium, I was looking forward to seeing this from both a reviewing standpoint and purely for personal pleasure. I missed the opportunity to see this in the Queen's Film Theatre a number of weeks ago, believe it or not, due to it being sold out. Although disappointed at not getting to see the film, I left satisfied in the knowledge that there is indeed a market for silent cinema. In The Artist, George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) is a silent film star and happens upon a chance encounter with a young fan by the name of Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo). As time goes by, Miller becomes an actress, and with the arrival of the talkies, her status begins to eclipse that of Valentin, who refuses to take sound film seriously and as a result his status declines. I'm not going to go into any more detail: all you need to know is 'one star declines while another rises.' There, hopefully I've done a decent job of selling that!

So, to start off with what is good about The Artist, I must flag up writer-director Michael Hazanavicius. Now, I have never seen any of his previous films, but the man has earned my complete and utter respect. Not only does he deserve praise for having the guts to pull off a silent film in a day and age when most people don't have patience for subtitles, never mind a completely silent picture, but also in making a silent picture that is highly accessible and that anyone could watch. It is made with such conviction that you don't question from about a minute or two in that you are watching a silent picture: you are simply watching a great film. Also, the way in which he structures his script to work around the use of sound as a storytelling device is very inventive, providing for some of the year's most memorable film moments. This brings me swiftly on to the next point I'd like to discuss, because as you know there is no such thing as an entirely silent film. Ludovic Bource is in the unenviable position of having to maintain the film's heartbeat with a consistent rhythm and pace that is non-intrusive. Far from intrusive, it almost invites a viewer participation. It does exactly what a score should do, and that is capture the mood of what is going on in the story, and Bource wisely does not force himself on the viewer. Listening to this score, in my mind I was Gene Kelly in Singin' In The Rain, bouncing around with a spring in my step and a smile on my face. Honestly, if I was in the cinema by myself, I would have been up on my feet dancing. Bource's work is nothing less than terrific and is a leading contender for best music of 2011. Also, with regards to sound editing/mixing, the use of certain sound techniques as storytelling methods is masterful. Now, to put things in a bit of context, during 2011 I discovered that I have hypersensitivity towards sound, which probably explains my general grumpiness at film scores, and whoever said knowledge is power was talking balderdash, as my hypersensitivity only seems to have increased with the lack of ignorance. As I mentioned earlier, your ears get accustomed to the film's sound pretty quickly, but there is a scene (which I don't want to spoil) that breaks from the established sound. This deviation unnerved me so much (and feel free to laugh) that I felt more intensely frightened during The Artist than any horror film I've seen this year. These deviations, which occur infrequently, so as to not make the film seem gimmicky, and quite obviously are meant to have these effects, my writing form being a fine example of the desired audience emotions. Also, being a silent picture, there is a greater emphasis on performance being a key part to storytelling. As such, I was very pleased to see that the film boasted many fine performances. Jean Dujardin is excellent as Valentin, depicting a fully-rounded character whose every surface we get to scrutinise. It is a very naked performance in the sense that nothing is simply window-dressing, but rather based on pure emotion and getting into the skin of his character. Though a brilliant romantic lead in silent film, we see Valentin also as a stubborn, charismatic, if slight aloof character, and it is through the power of Dujardin's performance that we are able to understand the various sides to him. Also splendid is Berenice Bejo as the simply charming Peppy Miller. Bouncy, full of confidence and life, Bejo completely inhabits the movie-star persona that Miller assumes as time goes by. Importantly though, we also get to see more than simply a movie-star, but also a vulnerable and slightly insecure young woman whose public image is perhaps more than a little misleading. In a lesser capacity, John Goodman, Malcolm McDowell, James Cromwell and Penelope Ann Miller shine, but I must pay a little attention to Uggie the dog. Sweet and humorous, he makes for a great sidekick to Dujardin's Valentin, has many of his own memorable moments and is my front-runner for best bit-part in a film in 2011. I understand I've went off on one here, but I've got a few more things I'd like to say about The Artist's pros. As far as a mise-en-scene goes, this is a fantastic piece of work. For a low-budget picture of $12 million, the production and costume designers have done a great job in believably capturing the world of late-20s Hollywood in transition. Also, Guillaume Schiffman's beautiful black-and-white cinematography does what all visual artists should aspire towards, and that is tell a story in a visual medium visually. The editing too is very modest, but my final compliment goes towards the overall tone of the picture. While by no means afraid to take on challenging material, and believe me, it does tread dark waters, but I can't remember the last time I enjoyed myself so much at the cinema. I had a good cry in the process and needless to say this film is the game-changer I was referring to in my previous review. It is an amazing bit of work, and while it may be hard to find, I would urge you to get your backsides down to the cinema urgently!

Wow! Looking back over that spiel, I'm surprised I got through it myself, so good luck if you've decided to skim over and read later, or the more power to you if you were able to drag yourself out of the Sarlacc's pit. For all my loving of The Artist (I know, here we go, it pains me to say it!), I must highlight one small criticism that is a little chink in the film's otherwise impenetrable armour. Frankly, I thought the film could do with less intertitles, as I felt that some of them were used to explain expository details that I had already got through all of the other elements used. I can understand their use for those perhaps not familiar with the medium, but for me, it was a niggle that was slightly irritable.

So, yes, aside from a little too many intertitles, I loved The Artist. Perhaps the novelty of a 'new' silent film has something to do with it, I'm not even going to try and feign objectivity. Nevertheless, outside of the context of the silent film medium, The Artist stands up tremendously on its own two feet. Boasting stunning performance from Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo, a terrific original score from Ludovic Bource, and some beautiful visuals to behold, courtesy of the cinematographer Guillaume Schiffman, and the film's editors, production and costume designers. Finally, The Artist hails the international arrival of writer-director Michel Hazanavicius. He made some of the wisest artistic decisions that I have seen a director make for some time, and it is him we must be very thankful to, for realising and bringing to fruition this cinematic treasure.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 9.8/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Zapped (put a lot of effort into this review. Nevertheless, feel free to point out typos and grammatical errors. I'd rather look like I put my English degree to good use!)

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Mission: Impossible - Gho

2012-01-29T07:43:00.000-08:00

Directed by: Brad Bird

Produced by: Tom Cruise

J.J. Abrams

Bryan Burk

Screenplay by: Andre Nemec

Josh Applebaum

Based on: Mission: Impossibe by Bruce Geller

Starring: Tom Cruise

Jeremy Renner

Simon Pegg

Paula Patton

Music by: Michael Giacchino

Lalo Schifrin (themes)

Cinematography by: Robert Elswit

Editing by: Paul Hirsch

Studio(s): Paramount Pictures

Skydance Productions

Bad Robot Productions

TC Productions

Distributed by: Paramount Pictures

Release date(s): December 7, 2011 (Dubai)

December 16, 2011 (United States) (IMAX)

December 26, 2011 (United Kingdom)

Running time: 138 minutes

Country: United States

Language: English

Production budget: $145 million

Box office revenue (as of publication): $571, 641, 000

Alright, so I took yesterday off! I reckon I'm due a day (or two) off after the amount of work I've been putting in over the past few weeks. Still, it ain't gonna stop me! This is the last week of reviewing and then I'll be putting together my best and worst of 2011. Over the next week, I'll be seeing Albert Nobbs, Conan, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and The Descendants for definite, but others will be included along the way, so, as ever, keep your eyes posted!

Okay, today's movie for review is Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol. I know the movie has been out for over a month now, but this was really the first opportunity that I got to see it. I attended a six o' clock screening at the terrific cinema that is The Strand, and one of the great pleasures about that cinema is that if a movie has been out a few weeks, generally there isn't much of a demand for it. As such, I got the pleasure of paying my three-pounds fifty-pence to watch this film on the big screen by myself. As for the Mission: Impossible series, we've had an interesting relationship. I haven't seen the first two for a while, but I remember the Brian De Palma 1996 film being a good, if slightly overrated thriller, while John Woo's M:I-2, released in 2000 was a messy affair, though it did have some fantastic stunts. It is J.J. Abrams' M:I-3 that was the best of the series, a showcase for both Abrams' talent at filming action and Tom Cruise, whose Ethan Hunt was given the benefit of strong character development. Five years on, in the fallout of that great film, we have Ghost Protocol. The debut live-action film of Brad Bird, one of our great living animation directors, Ethan Hunt and his team, Jane Carter (Paula Patton), Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg), and reluctant IMF analyst William Brandt (Jeremy Renner), are left with the blame of a terrorist attack on the Kremlin during their operation. After 'Ghost Protocol' is activated, disbanding the entire IMF, the team must, while fugitives, clear their name by finding out who is responsible for the attack and prevent the terrorists goal of beginning a nuclear war.

Starting with what is good here, I must compliment director Brad Bird. Showing no trepidation in the transition from animation to live-action and far from doing a for-hire job on behalf of J.J. Abrams, he mounts this formidable steed and runs with it. Handling the action with finesse, his visual stylistics are that of a pure storyteller and I look forward to seeing where he goes from here. Also, technically the film is strong, the cinematography casting an all-seeing eye over the proceedings, while wisely it is cut so we can admire the spectacle that is being presented. At risk of spurring any pretence of objectivity, I must say that it is a pet peeve at mine when an action film is cut as though Michael Myers Vs Leatherface (as directed by Michael Bay) is being shot in the editing suite. While I think directors like Paul Greengrass and J.J. Abrams use the Steadicam well, I am thankful to be able to say that this film does suffer from this terminal illness. Also, although you certainly aren't going to get any acting masterclass, you couldn't ask for a more charismatic bunch of actors to play the disavowed IMF team. Tom Cruise is Tom Cruise, terrific as ever, Jeremy Renner displays his range once again, Simon Pegg gets all the funny lines, and the film's most pleasant surprise is Paula Patton, who gets saddled with a weak character but comes across as a strong, empowering heroine. Finally, the stunt team working on this film deserve an extended round of applause for their work here. The whole thirty-minute sequence set in Dubai is among the greatest action sequences in film history. I shit you not, I was making noises like a poor eight-year-old woman in the throws of a vicious case of indigestion, and as a result was thoroughly grateful for my being the only one in the auditorium. I know there are some of your that'll be rolling your eyes at my hyperbole, but I started feeling faint and getting vertigo just watching it. Also, the whole structure of that sequence, cutting back and forth between the two different meetings and the ensuing chase that follows, is masterful, and brought out some of the most powerful emotions I have felt watching from a film in 2011.

Nevertheless, for all these emotions and my extreme hyperbole, this is still not a great film, because it has a number of fundamental flaws that detract from my enjoyment of it. Many of these emerge from the film's script. While by no means a slapdash bit of work, Andre Nemec and Josh Appelbaum's script feels very contrived. Every snippet of backstory or transitory scenes of dialogue in between the action feels mechanical and comes across as filler for the action scenes, far from the more organic M:I-3. If there was one thing that made the predecessor stand out from the rest was that there was clearly genuine care in Ethan Hunt's story. Furthermore, from the antagonist standpoint, there is some terrible characterisation. After Philip Seymour Hoffman's Owen Davian, these villains are as flimsy as those cardboard cutouts on a shooting range, and leads to some poor performances. Also, the film's ending is rather rushed in the wake of the sheer carnage ensuing throughout, especially given its long running time. Finally, though this is a minor quibble, it is hard to top the Dubai sequence, so perhaps this would have been more appropriate as the setting for the film's climax.

However, despite it's decent but nevertheless flawed script, I found Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol to be a very enjoyable film. Brad Bird makes the transition from animation to live-action successfully, his eye for spectacle translating over the medium and a big influence on the film's strong editing and cinematography. Also, the four leads are a charismatic bunch and do a fine job of sustaining the audiences' (as in my) interest. Finally, I reiterate, an extended round of applause for the stunt team, for causing this world-weary film critic to nearly faint during the terrific Dubai sequence.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 7.8/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Pretty good (given the weekend's shenanigans!)

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Hanna

2012-01-27T14:36:00.000-08:00

Directed by: Joe Wright

Produced by: Leslie Holleran

Marty Adelstein

Scott Nemes

Screenplay by: David Farr

Seth Lochhead

Story by: Seth Lochhead

Starring: Saoirse Ronan

Eric Bana

Tom Hollander

Olivia Williams

Jason Flemyng

Cate Blanchett

Music by: The Chemical Brothers

Cinematography by: Alwin H. Kuchler

Editing by: Paul Tothill

Studio(s): Marty Adelstein Productions

Studio Babelsberg

Distributed by: Focus Features

Release date(s): April 8, 2011 (United States)

May 6, 2011 (United Kingdom)

May 26, 2011 (Germany)

Running time: 111 minutes

Country(s): Germany

United Kingdom

United States

Language(s): English

German

French

Italian

Arabic

Spanish

Production budget: $30 million

Box office revenue: $63, 782, 078

Well, the reason I have not been on schedule, only posting this one review and having only watched one movie, is partly down to my own laziness, but mostly because the one movie I watched was The Artist. I will be dealing with that in a review of its own, but needless to say, my once rather predictable year-end awards have been shook up: the game has changed significantly on the last straight heading into Oscar season, so, for all updates before the season finale, keep your eyes posted!

I promised a number of surprises that weren't on my schedule, and this is one of them. Hanna is the new film by Joe Wright, director of Pride And Prejudice, Atonement and 2009's rather disappointing The Soloist. In a break from the dramas we have come to know him for, Hanna is an action-thriller, starring Atonement's Saoirse Ronan in the title role. Hanna is a teenager living with her father Erik Heller (Eric Bana) in the wilderness of Finland. Never having been in contact with the outside world, Heller has given her specialist training to become an assassin "when the time comes." When Hanna decides she is ready, she proceeds forth with her mission to kill a certain target. With this going on, CIA officer Marissa Wiegler (Cate Blanchett) is alerted to the presence of Heller, a former agent who betrayed the agency and is holding a secret that Wiegler cannot let go public. I know this isn't the most accurate plot explanation ever, but I want to get as much across as possible without revealing plot spoilers.

To start with the good about Hanna, I must praise director Joe Wright. Working outside of a genre that he is clearly comfortable with, he does a good job of controlling this film, which could have been a real mess, with finesse. Furthermore, given the ridiculousness of the concept and it's blackly humorous, exploitation film roots, I'm glad that Wright took the film seriously, treating the project respect and giving it a depth beyond surface level. Also, the original score by The Chemical Brothers is very good, giving the film a unique, electronic soundscape with heavy beats. Alwin H. Kuchler's cinematography contains numerous long-takes that obviously required a lot of set-ups, so the more power to him for being able to make the crew's hard work pay off by projecting with gusto the action that is occurring onscreen. Furthermore, from a production design standpoint, the cinematography is important, as both contribute to giving Hanna (the film) a unique look which makes it stand out from the pack. With regards to the acting, Eric Bana and Cate Blanchett are both good in their roles, but it is obviously Saoirse Ronan who shines here. In a difficult, physically and emotionally demanding role which a sort-of grown-up Mathilda from Leon, Ronan takes the weight of the film on her shoulders and runs with it. The execution of her part would have made or broke, and I think that we get the former, with her subtle role containing both an animal, instinctive intensity, while still clearly portraying a closeted teenager who is attempting to get in touch with her emotions. I'm glad that Ronan was wise enough to know not to overplay it. Finally, it's not often that we get film's destined for cult status, particularly as so many (just ask Quentin Tarantino) try so hard to make their own cult films. However, Hanna is one of these rarities, and is a genuinely interesting film.

As such, it pains me to point out the film's flaws. However, I do not think that Hanna is a great film, and has a number of issues that need pointing out. For starters, while I like certain elements of David Farr and Seth Lochhead's script, such as it's consistent, darkly humorous tone, I feel that when it comes to penetrating the surface of the story, it tries to dip its hands in too many pots. Is this a Brothers Grimm fairytale, an exploitation movie, or the subtle emergence of female sexuality a la Spirit Of The Beehive, etc etc? In the attempt to focus on so many different things, none of them succeed in coming across as successfully as one, or even two of them might have if they decided to axe some of the more flabby thematic content. Also, I must say that for a film that does stretch on a good fifteen to twenty minutes too long, it doesn't so much conclude as stop. The ending of the film is far too rushed for us as an audience to register what has been going on. This in unfortunate, especially given the qualities that the film possesses.

Still, for all these faults, which if I'm frank, stopped me from connecting to the film on a deeper emotional level, I rather enjoyed Hanna. It has three good performances, particularly from Saoirse Ronan. Also, Joe Wright daringly applies his trademarks to a very different genre from which he is familiar, resulting in some well-photographed and rehearsed long-takes. Sonically, The Chemical Brothers score adds immensely to the film's atmosphere. Finally, even in the faulted, flawed form, Hanna is still, at it's heart, a very good exploitation thriller that doesn't take itself too seriously, has a jet-black streak of humour running all the way through it and is one of the few genuinely unique pictures out there destined for cult film status.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 7.3/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Good (I'm glad you asked!)

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - J. Edgar

2012-01-26T13:07:00.000-08:00

Directed by: Clint Eastwood

Produced by: Clint Eastwood

Brian Grazer

Robert Lorenz

Screenplay by: Dustin Lance Black

Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio

Armie Hammer

Naomi Watts

Judi Dench

Josh Lucas

Music by: Clint Eastwood

Cinematography by: Tom Stern

Editing by: Joel Cox

Gary D. Roach

Studio(s): Imagine Entertainment

Malpaso Productions

Wintergreen Productions

Distributed by: Warner Bros. Pictures

Release date(s): November 11, 2011 (United States)

January 20, 2012 (United Kingdom)

Running time: 137 minutes

Country: United States

Language: English

Production budget: $35 million

Box office revenue (as of publication): $57, 348, 620

"I love it when a plan comes together." You know you're starting to run out of bright ideas when you start quoting Hannibal Smith from The A-Team as a starting point for your movie reviews. I've just been to the cinema to see Mission Impossible - Ghost Protocol, and needless to say I have a lot of strong opinions regarding the picture. What side the stick falls on, is up to God. Well, before I (as an agnostic atheist) start getting accused of blasphemy, I may as well wrap this preamble up with the traditional "keep your eyes posted!"

So, here we have the second in our biopic double-bill (though of course The Iron Lady is so up itself that people involved claim it not to be a biopic), Clint Eastwood's J. Edgar. For those of you who don't know, I am a massive Clint Eastwood fan, both in the acting and directorial capacity. I have been unfortunate to miss his most recent films, Invictus and Hereafter, I loved his 'other' 2008 film (Gran Torino having been released months later) Changeling, a highly underrated film which is one the best movies of the 2000s, with an extraordinary central performance from Angelina Jolie and is easily up there alongside Unforgiven as one of Eastwood's best films. Also, I think very highly of Leonardo DiCaprio, an actor who I feel gets rather unfairly slagged, as he has proven himself time and again to be a great actor. DiCaprio plays the eponymous J. Edgar Hoover, who was the director of the FBI and it's predecessor, the Bureau of Investigation. Following two separate storylines in the same manner of The Iron Lady, it depicts his rise to power from the Palmer Raids onwards, but is also an examination of his private and relationships, particularly those with his mother (Judi Dench) and Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer).

So, to start off with what is good about J. Edgar, I must congratulate Leonardo DiCaprio for his terrific performance as Hoover. He looks to have put on a bit of "solid weight" to play the part, and carries himself rather heavily. Also, he has Hoover's voice nailed down to a tee. Furthermore, as far as showing his emotions, DiCaprio shows, very subtly, a man who is not able to express to anyone else his feelings, and gives Hoover a genuine sense of sense of tragedy in his portrayal of him as inherently awkward and lacking in confidence. Also, Armie Hammer is very good as Clyde Tolson. Far from coming across as Hoover's metaphorical punchbag, Hammer delivers a three-dimensional performance that gives believability to his presence as the character who says everything that Hoover cannot. Also, he is thoroughly charming and charismatic, and as such you can understand Hoover's infatuation with his Clyde Tolson. Another element that works well, whenever it keeps it's focus, is Dustin Lance Black's script. When he really gets down working on the characters, Black's approach is humanistic and touching. He has a great feeling for dialogue, in that the characters get across their point and true meanings, while the veil of public politeness ensures they don't outright say it in a Basil Exposition manner. This is a nice element to the film, especially when one of the film's central themes focuses on Hoover's public image being a case of smoke and mirrors. Also, I think the film has a well-established mise-en-scene. The costumes and the production design entrench the audience into the various settings over the course of the fifty-odd years the film encompasses. Finally, Clint Eastwood is one of those directors who could make a decent film with his eyes closed, so it is no surprise that his efficiency comes through in the final product.

That said, with these numerous plusses, I found myself irritated by J. Edgar, in that I got to see what the film really should have been, but I had this bounced off of the film's messier aspects. As mentioned, Black's script is good when it maintains it's focus. It's unfortunate that it takes roughly an hour for J. Edgar to gain that focus. The central problem is the dual narrative. The elderly Hoover dictates to his biographer, and the story will go, a la flashback, into his memories. However, between these memories, as opposed to using this as a narrative structural device, we are constantly interrupted for the first hour by the elderly Hoover storyline, as though the young and elderly Hoover are both jockeying for pole position in their own movie. As such, it takes a long time to get into the movie, and I only got into the film when it decided to scrap the elderly Hoover story for an extended period and focus on the story that Black so obviously wished to tell. Also, Tom Stern, normally a terrific DP with a real eye for storytelling, poorly lights the film, so as to obscure the film's mise-en-scene. I don't know if he was attempting to give the movie a film noir look, but frankly there were large sections of the film were I was squinting to try and see what was going on. It would work for black-and-white photography, but for full-colour digital photography, it just doesn't. Watching these visuals would lead you to believe it was a different man who so beautifully lit and shot Changeling, a film interestingly set in roughly the same period as J. Edgar. Finally, much as I love Clint, I feel that as a director/auteur, he has made some poor decisions this time round. Most notable is the inclusion of a J. Edgar Hoover narration. Now, I like DiCaprio's performance and voice as Hoover, but having him also narrate the film is overbearing and is like having Charles Foster Kane booming through the speakers at you. Couple this with Eastwood's score, which I normally find to be the most understated part of his films but here found irritating, and you have a film that doesn't leave a whole lot of room to breath.

Now, don't get me wrong, J. Edgar is a flawed film. It has a troublesome narrative inconsistency, cinematography that threatens to make one colourblind and some poor decisions, but it is nevertheless a good film. Leonardo DiCaprio and Armie Hammer both give terrific performance in their respective roles as Hoover and Tolson, Black's script, though troublesome, has some great moments and is genuinely touching when it maintains a certain level of focus. Also, there is a very well-established mise-en-scene through it's costumes and production design, and, in the interest of fairness, has some nice long takes from Tom Stern. Finally, although Eastwood has made better (and longer) films of this nature such as Bird and Changeling, you are guaranteed an efficiently made film, and J. Edgar is a good film worth at a watch.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 6.4/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Sharp (as Crocodile Dundee's knife. Well, off to take the dog a walk!)

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - The Iron Lady

2012-01-26T06:14:00.000-08:00

Directed by: Phyllida Lloyd

Produced by: Damian Jones

Screenplay by: Abi Morgan

Starring: Meryl Streep

Jim Broadbent

Alexandra Roach

Harry Lloyd

Olivia Colman

Anthony Head

Nicholas Farrell

Richard E. Grant

Music by: Thomas Newman

Studio(s): Pathe

Film 4

UK Film Council

Media Rights Capital

Distributed by: The Weinstein Company (United States)

20th Century Fox (United Kingdom)

Pathe (France)

Release date(s): December 26, 2011 (Australia)

December 30, 2011 (United States; limited)

January 6, 2012 (United Kingdom)

January 13, 2012 (Wide release)

Country(s): United Kingdom

France

Language: English

Production budget: $13 million

Box office revenue: $32, 967, 122

Okay, now that I'm done with the scourge that is Sucker Punch, let us never speak of it again. Today, I have seen Hanna, and will be attending a screening of Mission Impossible - Ghost Protocol. Also, expect many reviews to keep coming in. As Rocky Balboa would say, "Ain't nothing over 'til it's over." Much work is to be done, and, in keeping with my trademarks, keep your eyes posted!

So, today's film up for scrutiny is The Iron Lady. The first major feature-film biopic on the life of Margaret Thatcher. Interestingly, not withstanding it's mixed critical reception, the film has also managed to irritate people of both the left and right on the political spectrum. While Mark and Carol Thatcher have been reported to call it "left-wing fantasy," others have criticised the film for glossing over the politics of Thatcher, instead depicting her as a woman triumphing against the odds. Beginning with the elderly Margaret Thatcher (Meryl Streep) buying milk in a shop, The Iron Lady follows two separate narrative timelines, the first showing her suffering from dementia and conversing with deceased husband Dennis (Jim Broadbent), while the second consists of her reflections over her life, from youth to her rise to power as the first female Prime Minster in the history of the British government. Excuse the Jamesian sentence, but it gets the point across with regards to the storyline.

To start with the good about The Iron Lady, I must highlight the performances of Meryl Streep and Jim Broadbent. Despite being an American, Steep nails Thatcher in her various incarnations, be it the younger "screecher" or the refined, deeper-voiced "Lady of the House." Vocally, it's a strong bit of work. Also, as far as believably embodying Thatcher, Streep's meticulousness and detailed research comes through. As far as Broadbent goes, his Dennis Thatcher is more of a character is opposed to a realistic depiction. However, in these terms, Broadbent is entertaining, charming and serves as a strong catalyst for Streep's Thatcher and her mental degeneration. Also, the film has some excellent makeup, particularly for Thatcher. It enables Steep to believably portray Thatcher over a period of time that spans approximately fifty years. This is no silly, leather-faced hokum pokum, but an integral part to the film's mise-en-scene, as is the hair that became one of Thatcher's trademarks. Also, I was impressed by the film's costumes, which serve the same purpose as the make-up, adding to the believability of the characters, but also giving the film's mise-en-scene a wide, varied range in terms of it's colour palette.

That said, with these good things, The Iron Lady is still a highly flawed, and frankly, boring film. Abi Morgan's script is a large part of the many contributing factors. For instance, the narrative structure, based around Thatcher's reflections on her life, is flimsy and very messy. Bouncing too freely back and forth between 'old' and 'young' Thatcher, it ensures that we never really get involved with the story the film is trying to tell. Also, the story itself is not one that we especially care for. Thatcher's 'reflections' are a rather base, contrived and cliched depiction of a woman overcoming the odds. Everything in the reflective storyline is so simplistic and propagandist in it's feeling that in bring to mind Eisenstein, a director I like, whenever he was at his very worst. Also, Morgan's characters are two-dimensional and feel like a strong wind would knock them over if put to the test. Furthermore, the dialogue sounds like something out an overly theatrical stage play without substance, and seems to serve no purpose in elevating the story beyond a basic, Basil Exposition surface level. Also, Thomas Newman, whose music I like, delivers an intolerably murder-by-numbers score that reeks to high heaven and serves as a reminder of the emotions that we are supposed to feel, in case the film's rather overt storytelling wasn't bad enough (yes, another appearance by the Emotional Heartstrings Orchesta!). Also, it must be said that if you are going to cast great actors such as Anthony Head and Richard E. Grant, give them something more substantial than a simple walk on, say something, walk-off part. Grant in particular suffers here, for while looking the part as Michael Heseltine, does not get the opportunity to give him any sense of depth or significance, despite playing a large part in Thatcher's political career. Finally, Phyllida Lloyd artistic decisions are a fine example of poorly judged misdirection.

The Iron Lady has to it's credit two strong performances from Meryl Streep and Jim Broadbent, some fantastic makeup and great costumes, both of which contribute much to establishing the film's mise-en-scene. However, these qualities are threatened to be dwarfed by Abi Morgan's base script, Thomas Newman's murder-by-number's score, under-utilised actors in Anthony Head, Richard E. Grant etc, and misdirection by Phyllida Lloyd. Incidentally, I was probably the only person under fifty in the screening I went to see this (and for all the flak teenagers get, the problem of talking in cinemas does not decrease with the increasing age of the audience demographic), and they came out as nonplussed by the film as I did. Honestly, it reminded me of the film's parodied in the Academy Awards section in The Naked Gun 33⅓: The Final Insult. At one point, I felt the eyes glazing over and my form slowly sinking into my seat, because for all it's qualities, and don't get the impression I hated the movie (my own fault perhaps), but I found it very dull and boring, and if you want to see a batty old woman, just watch Patricia Routledge as Hyacinth Bucket (it's 'Bouquet!') in Keeping Up Appearances.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 4.0/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Ready (I've got a long day of films ahead of me!)

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Sucker Punch

2012-01-25T15:10:00.000-08:00

Directed by: Zack Snyder

Produced by: Deborah Snyder

Zack Snyder

Screenplay by: Zack Snyder

Steve Shibuya

Starring: Emily Browning

Abbie Cornish

Jena Malone

Vanessa Hudgens

Jamie Chung

Carla Gugino

Oscar Isaac

John Hamm

Scott Glenn

Music by: Tyler Bates

Marius de Vries

Cinematography by: Larry Fong

Editing by: William Hoy

Studio(s): Legendary Pictures

Cruel and Unusual Films

Distributed by: Warner Bros. Pictures

Release date(s): March 25, 2011 (United States)

April 1, 2011 (United Kingdom)

Running time: 110 minutes

Country: United States

Language: English

Production budget: $82 million

Box office revenue: $89, 792, 502

Well, things are going well, although I have yet to advance on to watching two movies a day, much less my intended three a day. A lot of cramming is going on, and I have since acquired through various means seven films from 2011 that I can review. As such, I have now seen J. Edgar, and can guarantee a good few more in there. Some are one's that I have been consistently harping on about watching, others are surprises, so keep your eyes posted for details!

Alright, so my next film for review is Sucker Punch, the latest film from Zack Snyder. For those of you who don't know, me and Snyder have a little history. I first started paying attention to Snyder with 300, his adaptation of the Frank Miller comic book series, a simple yet highly stylish and entertaining film. However, since he has plied his craft to an adaptation of Alan Moore's Watchmen, a well-intentioned picture that ultimately flounders in style over substance. After this, he did Legend Of The Guardians: The Owls Of Ga'Hoole, a departure being an animated family film which I have yet to see. His latest is also a landmark in Snyder's career, in that it is the first time he has directed something he (and Steve Shibuya) wrote, as opposed to an adaptation. Sucker Punch follows 'Babydoll' (Emily Browning), who is blamed for the death of her sister, in actuality at the hands of her abusive stepfather (Gerard Plunkett), and as a result is institutionalised. After orderly Blue Jones (Oscar Isaac) is bribed into forging the asylum's psychiatrist Dr. Vera Gorski's (Carla Gugino) signature, Babydoll is next in line for a lobotomy. However, seconds before lobotomisation, she/we enter a fantasy world in which she joins an assortment of characters as the newest arrival at a brothel. Long story short, Babydoll and four other girls decide to make an escape plan.

Starting off with what is good about Sucker Punch, I must mention that Zack Snyder is a visual stylist and as such with every one of his films you are guaranteed a movie that has a number of good-looking moments. Larry Fong's cinematography is good, even if the lighting is a tad too dark, though that might be down to visual effects. Anyway, Fong comes up with some innovative shots, particularly the long-take with the girl's doing their makeup in front the mirrors that really distorts your perception of perspective. Also, I appreciate the music tastes of those involved. Regardless of content, this is a great soundtrack, with some inspired remixes/covers of songs by Eurythmics, Bjork, Jefferson Airplane, The Stooges, The Beatles, Pixies, The Smiths, Mozart and Roxy Music. Like the film or not, this is one fine collection of music, particularly Emily Browning's vocal performance.

Now, before I get suckered into thinking this is a good film, I'll get to what my brain tells me I think of the film. I'll buck the conventional form of analysis, concluding first and providing my argument second. Conclusion: Sucker Punch sucks! Why? Well, the main problem is not the depiction of women, which has had the film labelled as misogynistic, I think to label it is as such would be to give it credit of having a perspective any kind. No, the problem is the fact that the film has no narrative backbone. In the wake of Inception, it seems that every film of every genre has decided they can play limber and loose with film narrative, but the fact is that Inception had a structure, whereas Sucker Punch has the structural flimsiness of a marshmallow. At the moment of lobotomy, Babydoll dreams of brothels, as you do, and every time she dances goes off into battle with the rest of the gang of dolls/molls. It is so flimsy and weak the whole movie collapses within about ten minutes. Also, structurally as a whole, not just in the narrative sense, not only is it ludicrous but it is also repetitive. Look, I bought and enjoyed the opening scene, shot and edited around Emily Browning singing 'Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This).' However, and this not an insult to the music video or video games, which I think is a perfectly valid art form, whenever you repeat the same pattern of 'music video-story-video game' over and over, it gets really boring. I mean, The Wall consists of a rock star's mental degeneration in his apartment, but at least it has a structure (incidentally, it's the best thing Bob Geldof has ever done). Also, this 'assortment' of battle scenes, which essentially are there to indulge Snyder's pet hobbies and dress the girls in different fetish outfits, for all their different backgrounds, are essentially the same ten-minute sequence repeated five-fold. Also, as much as I love the songs, this is a loud and highly overbearing film that resulted in a more resonating headache than something as all over the place (in a good way) than Source Code managed, leaving me feeling like I had suffered a punt to the head (I know what that feels like, believe me) and both emotionally and physically exhausted and overwhelmed. Furthermore, Snyder's directorial trademarks are jacked up to eleven, and with Sucker Punch being his most self-indulgent film, it ends up feeling (and looking) like a grotesque parody of everything that he has accomplished as a director. Furthermore, this is a compromised indulgence: Snyder said that this was going to be an R-rated film, but ended up going for PG-13, opting to release an extended director's cut on DVD. Now, there is no excuse for this when you have final cut on your movie, so if you are going to appease your fetishes Mr. Snyder, you may as well go the full monty. As far I'm concerned Zack, you can take your extended cut, no wait, any cut of this film and shove it up your ass, because I'm not going to sit here and try to swallow this regurgitated vomit that you have decided to call a feature film. Virtually everything about this film made me irritable and disgruntled.

For all I liked about Sucker Punch, such as some good visual stylistics and cinematography, and a great soundtrack, I really did not like this film. Zack Snyder reaches Michael Bay-esque levels of self-indulgence/self-prostitution, and his compromised pet project left me annoyed at it's lack of narrative structure and overbearingness. How pertinent that this is a film produced by a studio called Cruel and Unusual Films. I'm happy to note that it barely broke even, because it didn't deserve any paying audiences full attention. It's not my worst film of the year, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't in my bottom ten films of the year. I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone, not least the institutionalised, who I think would feel themselves lobotomised and the whole process a torturous affair.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 2.6/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Tired (having to reprocess this mess of a film was something akin to a parasite draining my life-force)

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Source Code

2012-01-25T03:44:00.000-08:00

Directed by: Duncan Jones

Produced by: Mark Gordon

Jordan Wynn

Philippe Rousselet

Screenplay by: Ben Ripley

Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal

Michelle Monaghan

Vera Farmiga

Jeffrey Wright

Music by: Chris P. Bacon

Cinematography by: Don Burgess

Editing by: Paul Hirsch

Studio(s): The Mark Gordon Company

Vendome Pictures

Distributed by: Summit Entertainment

Release date(s): April 1, 2011 (United States/United Kingdom)

April 20, 2011 (France)

Running time: 90 minutes

Country(s): United States

France

Production budget: $32 million

Box office revenue: $123, 278, 618

The ball is still rolling, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't feel a little bit of drowziness (damn American English is confusing me, so excuse the typo if there is one!). However, I have been busy, having now seen Sucker Punch and The Iron Lady. Also, Senna is today's itinerary, and while of course Mission Impossible - Ghost Protocol, The Artist and The Descendants are more or less guaranteed for review, expect some others in the coming week or two. So, as ever, keep your eyes posted!

Alright, so Source Code is the new film by Duncan Jones, who first became a director to watch in the wake of his first picture, 2009's great science-fiction film Moon, starring Sam Rockwell. That film really put him on the map, as Moon, along with other such notables as District 9, Avatar and Inception, are science-fiction films of ideas as opposed to explosions. With his sophomore film Source Code, Jones returns to the science-fiction genre, but applies his aesthetic to Ben Ripley's central concept. Incidentally, I knew nothing about the plot going in, and that is part of the pleasure of the story, as everything is gradually unveiled, so if you, like me, are priggish about plot, SKIP TO THE END OF THE PARAGRAPH: Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) wakes up on a train opposite Christina Warren (Michelle Monaghan, a woman who apparently knows him, but he has never seen her in his life. Eight minutes later, the train explodes, and Stevens wakes up in an unfamiliar cockpit. Over a PA/screen, Air Force Captain Colleen Goodwin (Vera Farmiga) tells Stevens that he is part of the 'Source Code,' a military project created by Dr. Rutledge (Jeffrey Wright) so that he can enter an alternate timeline of the last eight minutes of someone's life on the train. His mission is to identify the bomber on the train by going over the same eight minutes, so as to prevent other terrorist attacks.

To start off with the good about Source Code, I must discuss Ben Ripley's script. Now, in the past we have seen different versions of the 'Groundhog Day' concept fail because it all gets repetitive very quickly. With Source Code, this is not the case, for it has a strong narrative backbone and clear structure that has been well-thought out. It is a reflection of the multiple scenarios that the protagonist is going through, with certain consistencies but as many differences. Also, Duncan Jones, working for the first time without his own script, flourishes from a directorial standpoint. Far from letting the film degenerate into sci-fi gimmickry, he maintains control of a project that in many other directors' hands could have been mishandled. Furthermore, he grounds the film in reality, so no matter how far fetched the concept is, we still buy it as legitimate. He is one director with a fine future ahead of him, fast becoming an auteur that can be genuinely trusted not to get lost in his indulgences, and along with Moon, his work is about as good one could ask on the basis of his relatively short career. Also, technically this is a remarkable film. Don Burgess' cinematography is highly inventive and borderline experimental in the way he shoots from angles which we would not normally think of. Importantly though, he too has control over himself, and his work first and foremost tells a story. Also, Paul Hirsch's editing is vital to the audience buying the film's story and concept. The whole ninety-minutes of the film is a thrill-ride, and Hirsch's editing is seamless, without any flab whatsoever. With the way the story is revealed, piece by piece, Hirsch's editing lets us get into the confused mind of Colter Stevens. This effect was so unnerving that I actually thought I was feeling sick, but the fact was that I was simply as confused as the film's protagonist, bouncing between various forms of consciousness and reality. While the script's structure gives this feeling a backbone, ultimately it is Hirsch's editing that visually creates this effect. I could go on and on about the visual effects and production design (which are certainly on shortlists for my upcoming awards presentation), but I want to get down to the acting. Interestingly, for a movie that has been shamefully dismissed come awards season, lead actor Jake Gyllenhaal is as good here as he ever has been. He imbeds the character of Colter Stevens with a genuine sense of warmth and reality. Also, it is one of those performances from a naturally gifted actor, never once chewing up the scenery, instead making Stevens come across as a real human being. Furthermore, I credit the humanity and respect he gives the part the main reason (I'm not kidding) I found myself on the verge of tears towards the end of the film, more of which in a bit. Also good, despite being saddled with less than perfect parts, were Michelle Monaghan, an actress whose work has been of varying quality in the past but is very charming here, and Vera Farmiga, who brings gravitas to the film's 'morally conflicted' character. Finally, as I mentioned, I was near the point of tears, because ultimately this is a film that does have ideas and messages to take away from it, carrying a powerful punch that hit home hard for this reviewer.

That said, for all that I liked about Source Code, there are a number of problems. For starters, Chris P. Bacon's score towards the end of the film becomes one of those really overt 'tell, tell tell!' kind of scores that is designed to reinforce the emotions that the audience is supposed to be feeling. I already was feeling these emotions, and as such, to have the Emotional Heartstrings Orchestra tease an appearance was an unpleasant surprise. Also, as much as I think Ben Ripley's script is masterful in terms of concept and narrative structure, I think in terms of the characterisation it falters. Regardless of the strong performances from those mentioned, the characters do still come across as cogs inside a mechanical structure. There is a serious lack of three-dimensional quality to them, especially when it comes to Michael Arden's character (who, incidentally, I picked out in the first sequence! Big ups for me!), and it is really only through the strength of the actors that they are salvaged.

Regardless of these problems, I do feel that Source Code is still one of the best films of the year. Ben Ripley's script has a solid narrative structure, while Duncan Jones once again shows his finesse and control as a director. Also, technically, in the editing, visual effects, cinematography and production design departments, the film flourishes. Finally, with strong actors in Michelle Monaghan, Vera Farmiga and a terrific central performance in Jake Gyllenhaal, we get, in Source Code, one of the year's finest films.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 8.7/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Good (update: I've got a significant amount of films just in. Believe me, I have work to do, so if it comes down to it, capsule reviews might have to suffice)

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - The Way Back

2012-01-24T09:52:00.000-08:00

Directed by: Peter Weir

Produced by: Peter Weir

Joni Levin

Duncan Henderson

Nigel Sinclair

Scott Rudin

Screenplay by: Peter Weir

Keith Clarke

Based on: The Long Walk by Slawomir Rawicz

Starring: Jim Sturgess

Colin Farrell

Ed Harris

Saoirse Ronan

Mark Strong

Dragos Bucur

Gustaf Skarsgard

Music by: Burkhard Dallwitz

Cinematography by: Russell Boyd

Editing by: Lee Smith

Studio(s): National Geographic Films

Spitfire Pictures

Imagenation Abu Dhabi

Film Fund Luxemborg

Distributed by: Newmarket Films

Exclusive Film Distribution

Meteor Pictures

Release date(s): September 3, 2010 (Telluride Film Festival)

December 26, 2010 (United Kingdom)

December 29, 2010 (United States)

Running time: 133 minutes

Language(s): English

Russian

Polish

Budget: $30 million

Box office revenue: $20, 348, 249

And the ball is still rolling, gathering matter like a katamari, enveloping mountains and planets until it is big enough to become a new star in our solar system... excuse me, did I lose my focus? Anyway, work continues as usual. Unfortunately, thanks to the brilliantly inconsistent public transport service that is Translink, I missed today's screening for Mission Impossible - Ghost Protocol. However, to compensate, I caught a screening of The Iron Lady, and yesterday (through entirely legal means, thank you SOPA!) I managed to see a version of Sucker Punch. So, with roughly eight days left to go, some serious cramming is in order. For 2012, I will have emerged out of my shell to become a fully-fledged critic with a relatively decent timetable, but in the meantime, you'll have to suffice with this, so, as ever, keep your eyes posted!

Ok, so today's film is The Way Back. Now, before you chastise me for reviewing a 2010 film (admittedly, I did make a blunder with [●REC]²), my backwards province of Northern Ireland only started showing this film in January of 2011, and given the fact it wasn't nominated at any major awards season events, it qualifies under my rules of eligibility. The Way Back is the new film by Peter Weir, who since the release of 1998's brilliant The Truman Show, has only made one other film in 2003's Master And Commander: The Far Side Of The World. His latest release is in the similar vein to the 2003 film: it follows Janusz Wieszczek (Jim Sturgess), a young Polish prisoner-of-war, who escapes imprisonment in the Soviet Gulag, and leads a group of individuals on four-thousand mile walk to freedom to India. Don't worry, I haven't spoiled the film for you, it tells you this at the start in the film's introduction.

So, to start with the good, I must once again (am I ever done?) compliment Jim Sturgess in his lead role (here comes a quote, 'Jim Sturgess Online!'). As a man who is still a young actor by the film industry's standards, it is admirable that Sturgess can legitimately carry the film on his shoulders. His character is the typically dull leader, for you always find the meatier roles with more quirks are in the supporting roles, particularly the 'Kikuchiyo' stock-role that appears in these films. However, Sturgess gives Janusz a genuine sense of credibility and a three-dimensional humanity about him. Also good are Ed Harris, who himself plays a stock role, but gives the part a credibility not unlike the same qualities that Sturgess brings to the table. Colin Farrell is also remarkably convincing as Valka, the 'Kikuchiyo' role in the film. Playing a Russian covered in tattoos, Farrell is a far more versatile actor than most people give credit, and you do buy him in this part. Also, technically the film is very well made. Lee Smith, one of the best working editors, applies his suitably fine craft to the film, and contributes a lot to the development of the atmosphere of sheer exhaustion and effort that the characters are having to make. Furthermore, in conjunction with Russell Boyd's strong cinematography, it's obvious Weir and co. have spent a good bit of time researching the movie, as there are some fantastic locations here. As such, we are able to believe the idea that we are witnessing these characters go on a journey. Finally, Peter Weir is nothing if not a director who thoroughly cares for every project he works on. This is a film where you can feel the passion of those involved, and this is only a good thing for The Way Back.

However, passion or passion, a movie has got to have some substance, and while being a good, admirable film, it isn't entirely up to snuff. The central element that causes issues is the script, for with the script arise a number of problems with the film. For starters, the characters, while being well-acted, are more or less stock parts. While some actors are able to get away with it, others such as the normally reliable Mark Strong aren't, because the characters are treated as tools in an overall structure that comes across as designed merely so Weir can tell this story. Also, there is a serious tonal inconsistency. Now, I have no problem with the audience being given room to breath, but it is infuriating to bounce so freely between Darwinian 'horrors of war,' to highly indulgent tones consisting of "isn't this all very brave? Look he's crossing a river, how brave!" Furthermore, the tone of bravery, courage, yadda, yadda, is hammered in by Burkhard Dallwitz' score, which is far too overt. If anything, what this film needs is a bit less score and more diegetic sound of the wind blowing or something of the sort. It gave the film an air of contrivance, and honestly, with the whole recurring 'bravery' themes (brought to you courtesy of the Emotional Heartstrings Orchestra), I was half expecting an explosion into the great Jerry Goldsmith's Rambo theme: we know these people are brave and courageous, you don't need to keep telling us!

So, with regards to The Way Back, if with a hint of trepidation, as some of it's problems are very notable, this still remains a good film. There are some strong performances, particularly from Jim Sturgess, Ed Harris and Colin Farrell. Also, technically it is a sound piece of work, with Lee Smith and Russell Boyd each applying their respective crafts in the editorial and photographic departments. Furthermore, with a director like Weir, you're guaranteed at least a movie by a director who truly believes in what he is doing. Even if isn't Come And See or Platoon, if you able to get past a flawed script, inappropriate score and the fact that the film is at least twenty minutes too long, you'll enjoy The Way Back.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 6.7/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Tired (but this ball is going to keep on rolling until it's over. The metaphorical 'it,' of course!)

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Kill List

2012-01-22T04:50:00.001-08:00

Directed by: Ben Wheatley

Produced by: Claire Jones

Andy Starke

Screenplay by: Ben Wheatley

Amy Jump

Starring: Neil Maskell

Michael Smiley

MyAnna Buring

Emma Fryer

Music by: Jim Williams

Cinematography by: Laurie Rose

Editing by: Ben Wheatley

Robin Hill

Amy Jump

Studio(s): Rook Films

Warp X

Film4 Productions

Screen Yorkshire

UK Film Council

Distributed by: Optimum Releasing (United Kingdom)

IFC Films (United States)

Release date(s): March 12, 2011 (South By Southwest Film Festival)

August 20, 2011 (Espoo Film Festival)

August 28, 2011 (FrightFest)

September 2, 2011 (United Kingdom)

February 3, 2012 (United States)

Running time: 92 minutes

Country: United Kingdom

Language: English

Budget: £500,000

Box office revenue (as of publication): $142, 697

This time I was right! I'm gonna ride the lightning while there's thunder still in the air, so as well as reviewing this, I've reviews for The Way Back and Source Code coming in. On a side note, I said that I was going to see The Artist, but unfortunately (through no fault of my own. No, really!), I couldn't. I showed up at the Queens Film Theatre twenty minutes before the 19.30 start time, and the place was bunged, between people coming in from the previous 17.30 screening and those looking to get in for the next one. So, I got to box office, and lo and behold, the screening was sold out, so ended up having a solitary pint in the Students Union and going home. While I was disappointed, I have to say given the circumstances I am happy to see that there is such an audience interest in silent film. Regardless of what they think about it, in the end, people are paying their hard-earned money to see the film, and it shows the level of just how openminded audiences are when they aren't being fed assembly-line balderdash from Hollywood like battery hens. I might not have got to see it, but I believe it will be coming out soon in multiplexes, so, keep your eyes posted!

So, today we have Kill List, a British film that debuted in the United Kingdom to a warm reception at the 2011 FrightFest. It has been picking up a significant amount of buzz from various other festivals as the scariest horror film of the year. Interestingly, like last year's "Best Horror Film" (source: me!) Tony, this is one of those horror movies which is set in the real world and involves people as opposed to ghouls. Jay (Neil Maskell), a former British soldier based in Kiev, is shown as having marital troubles, particularly in the financial department, with wife Shel (MyAnna Buring). So, when friend and fellow contract killer Gal (Michael Smiley) comes to him with a contract promising a big payoff, he agrees to join him. I'm not going to get into too much detail with regards to the story, as it is one of those one's that it is better to go into blank.

To start off with what is good about Kill List, I must compliment the film's overall atmosphere. Throughout, there is a highly unnerving sense of dread, even whenever it is just an interaction between Jay and Gal. Speaking of which, both Maskell and Smiley give very believable and naturalistic performances as their respective characters. Because of the film's cinema verite nature, they come across not as characters but instead real people, and this adds to the overall picture. Also, as characters they are well-written and I thought that the dialogue (whether improvised or not) was excellent and the two played it with great timing. Ben Wheatley, the film's writer-director, has a good handle on the material and, for the most part, remains consistent in his solid direction. Also, Laurie Rose' cinematography is inventive and subversive, but also rather varied in terms the range of shots and approaches to shooting the film. Given how low-budget the picture is, Rose' contribution to what works about Kill List cannot be underestimated. Similarly, Jim Williams' minimalist score is subtle to the point were you might not remember what it is, and in terms of film theory I always espouse 'less is more,' as in less scenes in movies should have a score over the top of the scene, but those rules are made to be broken. In this case, Williams' score is consistent throughout, and while I like my films to be rough and raw, I doubt that the lack of score would have made Kill List as intense an experience as it is, and this score had me feeling very uncomfortable (in a good way) throughout much of the film. Finally, I have to commend Wheatley for making a realist horror film that is set in the real world and lacks the traditional trademarks of a 'horror' film, yet still remains an uncomfortable, claustrophobic experience. It is for the most part a genuine triumph.

Now, I did like Kill List, but these kind words said, I don't think it is a great movie for a number of reasons. The script by Wheatley and Amy Jump, which has well-written characters and dialogue, is structurally messy and falls apart in the final act. For me, I felt that it should have stuck to it's guns, and without spoiling anything, it was already nightmarish enough without having to throw the audience into unnecessary horror film histrionics. Also, I don't think that the film was as well edited as it was shot, and in the final act, excluding one particularly unnerving scene, I thought that it did degenerate into horror film gimmicky. It reminded me of that rubbish final act of Sunshine, which was all the more disappointing given how much I was into the film. I hate to use that rhetoric about Kill List, but that is how it made me feel!

That said, even with these problems, in a rather lackluster year for genuinely good horror films, Kill List is a stand-out. It has some very good, naturalistic performances, strong cinematography, (mostly) consistent direction, with well-written characters and dialogue and a subtly intelligent score. Furthermore, it has a wholly unique atmosphere of genuine uncomfortableness that should be commended. As a film with it's flaws, it still stands as a really good horror film with a number of commendable qualities.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 7.7/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Amped (the ball's still rolling!)

P.S. Oh, I forgot MyAnna Buring is also very good in this film. Appologgies!

The Thin White Dude's 3rd Annual Acknowledgements For Contribution To Cinema Hall Of Fame

2012-01-20T10:49:00.000-08:00

Hey gang, the reason for my lack of activity is down to a combination of laziness and an excess of English work hanging over my head in university, so needless to say I'm glad that is over. This is the second year of my Hall Of Fame preceding the posting of my Best And Worst Of The Year, so consider this a little teaser for what is coming up in the next month. The running for every award is still an open playing field if I see a certain movie before the 1st of February. Also, I have been watching movies, so expect a new review every day or two, this being my busy period of the year after all, so keep your eyes posted!

Well, without further ado, it's..... (drum roll please!)

The Thin White Dude's 3rd Annual Acknowledgements For Contribution To Cinema Hall Of Fame

Class Of 2011 To The Thin White Dude's Hall Of Fame 'Individual Contribution' Wing

The 5th Hall Of Fame Inductee For Contribution To Musical Composition

Jerry Goldsmith

Planet Of The Apes, The Omen, Alien, First Blood, Gremlins, Total Recall, Air Force One, L.A. Confidential, The Mummy: these are but a few of the many great film scores that Goldsmith contributed to cinema. One only has to look at the range here and understand the variety of orchestration that Goldsmith composed in his lifetime. Always adapting his trademarks to suit the project, Jerry Goldsmith is one of the best of the best in film composition.

The 4th Hall Of Fame Inductee For Contribution To Editing

Conrad Buff

Buff has proved himself as one of the most technically adept editors in film history. From working on films such as Arlington Road, Training Day and 2011's Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes, to his expertise in selling James Cameron's most daring projects (The Abyss, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Titanic), his proficiency in the editing suite has contributed immensely to creating the atmosphere that his films require.

The 5th Hall Of Fame Inductee For Contribution To Cinematography

Tonino Delli Colli

Those extreme close-ups in Sergio Leone films, those wide shots in Pasolini's work, those images that have been imprinted on the minds of many a film fan are due to extraordinary cinematography of Tonino Delli Colli. Adept at changing shooting style, the consistent element of his camerawork is exquisite use of the Technicolor format, creating some of the most beautiful images in cinema history.

The 5th Hall Of Fame Inductee For Contribution To Screenwriting

Ingmar Bergman

Although more famous as a director, much of the reason for his films' success were his note-perfect scripts. He would not have been able to successfully get across his thematic content if it weren't for his well-rounded and fully believable characters. Also, he was a master at writing dialogue, and the way he structured his screenplays left much open for interpretation, inviting an audience's participation with his films.

The 4th Hall Of Fame Inductee For Contribution To Female Acting

Liv Ullmann

One of Ingmar Bergman's muses, Ullmann was the greatest of all the actresses he ever worked with. Her naturalistic performance style fit Bergman's films to a tee. In films such as Persona, Shame, Hour Of The Wolf and The Passion Of Anna, she almost becomes a part of the mise-en-scene, the subtlety of her acting elevating the legitimacy of the world's Bergman created.

The 5th Hall Of Fame Inductee For Contribution To Male Acting

Klaus Kinski

No one portrayed onscreen madness or the lust of impossible dreams like Klaus Kinski. His collaborations with Werner Herzog saw him cast to perfection, Herzog drawing from the actor an extraordinary range of performances in Aguirre: The Wrath Of God, Nosferatu: The Vampyre and Fitzcarraldo. His wonderfully gargoyle-like face saw him cast in a number of English-language films, such as Doctor Zhivago, and a regular in Italian westerns, such as For A Few Dollars More and The Great Silence.

The 4th Hall Of Fame Inductee For Contribution To Producing

Roger Corman

The man whose assembly-line low-budget filmmaking gave a number of our finest filmmakers their start in the film industry. Corman proteges include Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorsese, James Cameron, Dennis Hopper, Robert De Niro and Jack Nicholson. When one thinks of the impact these people had in film history, one must look back and appreciate the necessity for people like Roger Corman, who were willing to take the chance on them that no one else would.

The 5th Hall Of Fame Inductee For Contribution To Directing

Sergei Eisenstein

It is a personal opinion of mine that no one had a greater understanding of the power of cinema than Eisenstein. Despite only making eight feature films, two of which were released after his death due to his run-ins with the Soviet authorities, Eisenstein's is no mere blip in the film world: his silent 'trilogy' (Strike, The Battleship Potemkin, October) elevated the propaganda medium to the level of high art, and the same can be said for his later work, including Alexander Nevsky and Ivan The Terrible Part's I and II.

Class Of 2011 To The Thin White Dude's Hall Of Fame 'Films' Wing

Okay, so the 'Film' Wing is starting to take shape in its third year. This year, I've introduced an eight category specifically to highlight the importance of the short film medium. The films selected here went through a process of shortlisting, from which they were chosen out of a final five deemed suitable for induction. The only rules I have are that animated films, while being a legitimate medium, do not have a category, and are considered for induction into all other eight categories. Also, I apply the National Film Registry rule of a film having to be a minimum of ten years old to be eligible for induction.

The 3rd Hall Of Fame Inductee Representing Comedic Film

City Lights (1931) - Charlie Chaplin

In 1931, regardless of the advent of sound cinema, Chaplin stubbornly refused to leave the silent film medium, and in doing so gave us one of his best films. While at heart being a (very) funny comedy, Chaplin also has City Lights comment on the Great Depression, and has one of film's most touching and moving screen romances. A greater success than most comedies ever dream of being, Chaplin's Little Tramp brings you to tears and has you in stitches in equal measure.

The 3rd Hall Of Fame Inductee Representing Science-Fiction/Fantasy Film

A Clockwork Orange (1971) - Stanley Kubrick

Hypnotic and disturbing, Kubrick's masterful adaptation of Anthony Burgess's 1962 novel is as ahead of it's time now as it was forty years ago. The subversive and charismatic Malcolm McDowell gives one of cinema's greatest performances as Alex, while Wendy Carlos' Moog Synthesiser adds to the film's darkly satirical style. Also, Kubrick's directorial prowess, in the wake of 2001: A Space Odyssey, truly came to fruition, and in the process created one of cinema's masterpieces.

The 3rd Hall Of Fame Inductee Representing Horror Film

An American Werewolf In London (1981) - John Landis

Never before and never since has the fine line between horror and comedy been balanced. John Landis' pet project for over a decade saw the script having a long gestative process, and during that time it was perfected. With a stellar soundtrack including 'Bad Moon Rising,' a cast whose performances, particularly David Naughton, exhibited excellent timing, and Landis' direction, you'll never have as much fun being scared.

The 3rd Hall Of Fame Inductee Representing Thriller Film

Psycho (1960) - Alfred Hitchcock

After having made thrillers for Paramount such as Vertigo and North By Northwest, Alfred Hitchcock decided that he wanted to do a different project. So, after much negativity from the studio, who hated the source novel, Hitchcock shot Psycho in black-and-white and kept costs for the film under a million dollars. As a result, we got the privilege of enjoying one of the most shocking and intense thrillers in film history, that shower scene, and one of cinema's most memorable characters in Anthony Perkins' Norman Bates.

The 3rd Hall Of Fame Inductee Representing Drama Film

The Seventh Seal (1957) - Ingmar Bergman

The film that established Ingmar Bergman's reputation as cinema's great philosopher. There is not a single boring moment in this film, a supreme example of film efficiency, with so much density in a film that is essentially short at ninety-six minutes. From this point on, Bergman went to make some great films, but The Seventh Seal, with it's religious themes and the knight Antonius Block's attempts to defeat Death, is the best place to start in your Bergman pilgrimage.

The 3rd Hall Of Fame Inductee Representing Action/Adventure Film

The Battleship Potemkin (1925) - Sergei Eisenstein

I know some of you will argue with me on this, but it is impossible not to see the action film aesthetics of Potemkin. Eisenstein's interpretation of the 1905 Potemkin mutiny set the structural template for future action films. Furthermore, with many memorable scenes, particularly the Odessa Steps sequence, which for my money is more intense than most 'action' scenes in films to this day, Eisenstein constructs one of the finest films ever made.

The 2nd Hall Of Fame Inductee Representing Documentary Film

My Best Fiend (1999) - Werner Herzog

Werner Herzog's touching elegy to the late Klaus Kinski is one of the finest examples of the documentary medium as a portrait of a certain individual. Entertainingly constructing his own interpretation of one of cinema's most enigmatic individuals, Herzog presents a well-rounded Kinski, who is shown to have a tender and humorous side, as opposed to the 'raving madman' public image. Also, it shows two men, bound by love and hate, who just happened to make great films.

The 1st Hall Of Fame Inductee Representing Short Film

The Music Box (1932) - James Parrott

One of the greatest of Hal Roach's many Laurel and Hardy productions, like many of their films, begins with the simple concept of the boys moving a piano up a flight of steps. Of course, being Laurel and Hardy, things don't go as planned, and we bear witness to some of the greatest gags in film history. Also, it shows us the importance of the short film medium, as this concept would be drawn out too far in a feature, and so tightness and efficiency are among the qualities of this often overlooked medium.

Well, there you have 'em! I would sincerely recommend that you get down to watching some of these films, if not all of them. They are for my money excellent examples the medium of film. Critics and scholars sometimes have a tendency to separate film into two categories: 'art' and 'entertainment.' Now, I disagree with this categorisation, but in fairness, I too have two categories that I work by: 'good' and 'bad.' If you get a really 'good' example of film, such as those above, you get all the art and entertainment you could ever ask for, and thus it renders the separation between the two null and void. There is no such thing as 'art' and 'entertainment,' only 'film,' and every picture above is a 'good' example of film. This is The Thin White Dude signing off (for a few hours), and I'll see you soon, so keep your eyes posted!

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

2012-01-18T18:15:00.000-08:00

Directed by: David Fincher

Produced by: Soren Staermose

Ole Sondberg

Scott Rudin

Cean Chaffin

Screenplay by: Steven Zaillian

Based on: The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo by Stieg Larsson

Starring: Daniel Craig

Rooney Mara

Christopher Plummer

Stellan Skarsgard

Steven Berkoff

Robin Wright

Yorick van Wageningen

Joely Richardson

Music by: Trent Reznor

Atticus Ross

Cinematography by: Jeff Cronenweth

Fredrik Backar

Editing by: Kirk Baxter

Angus Wall

Studio(s): Scott Rudin Productions

Yellow Bird Films

Distributed by: Colombia Pictures

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

Release date(s): December 20, 2011 (United States)

December 21, 2011 (Sweden)

December 26, 2011 (United Kingdom)

Running time: 158 minutes

Country(s): United States

Sweden

United Kingdom

Germany

Language: English

Budget: $90 million

Box office revenue: $141, 725, 000

Seems like my trademark has become talking about reviewing movies, than going off into a cave for a couple of weeks, coming back for a few, and then shrinking back into the night from whence I came. Honestly, I've had as nearly many career comebacks as Terry Funk, and I've only been around for five (that's one for the marks!)! Well, things are going alright, regardless of my being swamped down with creating writing, late medieval literature and, ahem, film studies. I'll have you guys know that I have seem, as well as this film, Kill List, The Way Back (finally), and will be seeing The Artist tomorrow (I will have seen by the time of publication, so excuse the future tense being used for the past). Also, I have a little schedule lined up, so I can guarantee reviews for Source Code, J. Edgar, Mission Impossible - Ghost Protocol, and certainly there will be others in there. January is always my busy month, and I've got a good two weeks left before I work on my best and worst of 2011. As ever, I'm working by award calendar, so expect it up in February, and, as ever for you, keep those eyes posted!

Okay, so today's film is David Fincher's adaptation of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. Unfortunately, I have yet to see the original, Swedish-language adaptation, but have a copy, so I'll get down to watching that at some point. However, I have read the book, which for a long time I avoided because everyone else was reading it, and now I can see what the fuss is about. It is one of the most intelligent and gripping thrillers I've ever read, and Larsson creates rich characters, displaying his grasp of an efficiency of language. Regardless, this is not about the book, this is about the adaptation. When judge a screen adaptation in relation to it's source, sometimes they forget that a film review is not about a comparison between the two: reading the book is merely a context, but where a film review is concerned, it may as well have not existed. Brief plot synopsis of Fincher's Dragon Tattoo; we follow Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig), a journalist who has been shamed in the wake of losing a libel case. Wishing to retreat, he gets a lucrative offer from retired industrialist Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer), to write the Vanger family chronicle. This chronicle however are a ruse to deter his family, including Martin (Stellan Skarsgard) and Cecilia (Geraldine James), for images sake, as he is really being employed to investigate the disappearance of Henrik's niece Harriet, nearly forty years hence. Meanwhile, Henrik's lawyer Dirch Frode (Steven Berkoff) has hired Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) to do a background check on Blomkvist. Without spoiling things we already know, through certain machinations in the plot, Salander and Blomkvist become aware of one another, and begin working together on the Harriet Vanger case.

To start with what is good, I will flag up the significance of the film's opening credit sequence. I know this may not sound like a big deal, but so many other films fail in this department. We are given some very striking images of people entwined and writhing around in what looks to be oil. Honestly, Barbara Broccoli of the James Bond franchise would be jealous! This sequence, featuring the cover of Led Zeppelin's Immigrant Song with Karen O on vocals, perfectly sets up what is to follow, and is the most outstanding opening to a film from 2011. Another of the film's great characteristics is the fact that this is a David Fincher interpretation more than adaptation. His stamp is all over the film, and this can be seen in numerous aspects. The cinematography by Jeff Cronenweth and Fredrik Backar is a fine example of cinematic storytelling, because although it is a very wordy story, images say far more than words. Also, since he began his collaboration with Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross on The Social Network, Fincher has carried over some that film's stylistic trademarks and applied it to The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. As such, we get this fantastic synchronicity of the original score and Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall's editing. Each of these elements are great by themselves, but their synchronicity ensures that this story, a long, complex and complicated tale, has a consistent feeling of momentum about it. It's as though from the opening credits, the ball keeps rolling and doesn't let up until the credits roll. This a feature that has been distinctive to both this and The Social Network, and it is something quite unique in that there are no other films quite like them. Fincher's Dragon Tattoo is the fulfilment of his auteur status, in that he has taken an iconic source and made it completely his own. Finally, I'd like to flag up a number of the film's key players, because, as they say, a good cast is worth repeating! Daniel Craig is a convincingly weather-beaten Mikael Blomkvist and in a much smaller capacity, I enjoyed Steven Berkoff's performance as Dirch Frode. Also, Stellan Skargard and Christopher Plummer both deliver great supporting turns in their respective roles as Martin and Henrik Vanger. However, Rooney Mara in particular deserves praise for her tremendous performance as Lisbeth Salander. With Fincher (admirably) by no means pussyfooting around the source's dark content, Mara has the toughest part to execute, and she takes these challenges in her pride. In a convincing transformation, she doesn't so much act as slither into the skin of Salander and make flesh this character. She has a magnetic screen presence which despite being a 'big' character in some ways, comes across as wholly naturalistic and believable. Also, on a side-note, the costume and make-up for Mara's transformation contributes a good bit, but I still do not think it would have been nearly as convincing as it is without Mara. What could have been simply a sulky, moody young woman becomes a three-dimenional, fully-rounded human being, an unlikely heroine who deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as Ellen Ripley, and Mara's outstanding performance is a key component of this immortalisation.

Now, don't get me wrong, I thought that Fincher's Girl With The Dragon Tattoo was a great film. However, I cannot say that it is a masterpiece and that there a few problems with the script by Steven Zaillian. While certainly it must be hard to nail all the characters in this labyrinthine plot, I really don't feel that you get to know any of the characters outside of the main leads. This is an issue because a number of the supporting cast get the same amount of screen time, but some of them aren't given a sufficiently crafted part to play. Also, this is detrimental to the performances, specifically Robin Wright and some of the others playing members of the Vanger family. Speaking of the actors (on a quick side note), where is the consistency of accents? It can be irritating and make the other performers look weaker if some of them have an accent and other don't! Anyway, back to the script, I also thought that the final twenty/twenty-five minutes was something that needed working at. I liked the ending, but those penultimate moments came across as rather rushed and contrived, which was very disappointing given how much I did like the film.

Regardless of the numerous script problems, David Fincher's version of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is a great film. He follows through with his uncompromised vision, and once again Reznor and Ross' score synchronises well with the editing, giving the film a feeling of continuous momentum. Also, the cinematography is a great example of a film, though wordy, telling it's tale cinematically. Finally, with one of the greatest credit sequence in film and some stellar acting turns, particularly the quite brilliant Rooney Mara, we have one of the most satisfying thrillers of 2011.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 8.6/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Good (uni work out of the way, I can get down to some hardcore reviewing!)

The Thin White Dude's Movie Of The Month: December 2011 - Hugo

2012-01-07T09:16:00.000-08:00

Martin Scorsese's latest continues a trend since his Oscar-winning The Departed in making very different films than those he is normally associated with. Once again, he succeeds, giving the audience a visually beautiful film, with some excellent production design by Dante Ferretti, sublime art direction and costume design. Finally, Asa Butterfield, Chloe Grace Moretz, Sacha Baron Cohen and Ben Kingsley top off the most enjoyable film of the Christmas releases.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 8.5/10

Runner-Up: 13 Assassins - Takashi Miike's film is full of life and has more breathtaking moments than all of this years' Hollywood action movies combined.

Second-Most Deadly Disease: The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 - Aside from a long-winded title, it lacks the genuine substance that it so promises.

Avoid Like The Plague: Age Of Heroes - Danny Dyer is embarrassingly bad in this terrible, murder-by-numbers film that has no reason to exist

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - 13 Assassins

2012-01-06T17:03:00.000-08:00

Directed by: Takashi Miike

Produced by: Toshiaki Nakazawa

Jeremy Thomas

Takashi Hirajo

Screenplay by: Daisuke Tengan

Story by: Shoichiro Ikemiya

Based on: Jusan-nin no shikaku by Eiichi Kudo

Starring: Koji Yakusho

Takayuki Yamada

Yusuke Iseya

Goro Inagaki

Masachika Imamura

Mikijiro Hira

Music by: Koji Endo

Cinematography by: Nobuyasu Kita

Editing by: Kenji Yamashita

Studio(s): Sedic International

Recorded Picture Company

Toho Company

Distributed by: Toho Company (Japan)

Artificial Eye (United Kingdom)

Magnet Releasing (United States)

Release date(s): September 9, 2010 (Venice Film Festival)

September 25, 2010 (Japan)

April 29, 2011 (United States)

May 6, 2011 (United Kingdom)

Running time: 141 minutes (Japanese version)

126/120 minutes (International versions)

Country(s): Japan

United Kingdom

Language: Japanese

Production budget: $6 million

Box office revenue: $17, 555, 141

Okay folks, so this is my last review for the month of December 2011, and after I file in my Movie of the Month, I'll be moving swiftly onto January 2012. As mentioned in my previous review, I have seen The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, but I promised you I would see some more films. As such, I have went out and managed to see Kill List, a British horror film that has got a great degree of acclaim and debuted at FrightFest in 2011. Also, having got myself into a better routine so I can review and do work for university at the same time, updates on the blog will be fairly regular, so keep your eyes posted!

Today's movie is one that I have been looking forward to seeing for some time. 13 Assassins is the new film from Takashi Miike, though of course when it comes to Miike I mean 'latest release in the UK,' as he has since made three films. Competing for the Golden Lion at the 67th Venice International Film Festival alongside other notables such as Black Swan and winner Somewhere, 13 Assassins has been critically well-received, and certain in the Western world it has become Miike's most commercially successful and well-known film, being compared to Kurosawa's 1954 Seven Samurai. I have been a fan of Miike for a number of years, for much of my own personal education in international cinema came from recent East Asian movies from Japan, Hong Kong and South Korea. Of these films, the film that arguably has had the most impact on me was Miike's Audition, a film that at once had me cowering behind a cushion in horror and fighting tears at its beautifully understated and poetic melodrama. For me, Audition is indisputably one of the greatest films ever made, and one of the rare perfect movies that comes along every four or five years. Along with Audition, Miike has proven adept at bouncing between many genres, as displayed by The Happiness Of The Katakuris, Visitor Q and Ichi The Killer, all made in the same year (how anyone could manage that task is beyond me)! So, needless to say I was looking forward to witnessing Miike's take on the samurai film genre. In 1840s Japan, the shogun era is reaching its end, and the sadistic Lord Naritsugu Matsudaira (Goro Inagaki) rapes and pillages for his own amusement, but is free to continue at his will due to his being the son of the previous shogun and the brother of the current shogun. Naritsugu being next in line is of great concern to Toshitsura Doi (Mikijiro Hira), a senior government official, who hires a group of assassins, heading up by Shinzaemon Shimada (Koji Yakusho).

Starting off with what is good, I must say some kind words about director Miike. Once again, he adapts his very distinctive directorial style and puts his stamp on a film. Interestingly though, while there are recognisable trademarks, Miike displays much more modesty and control than in his previous films. 13 Assassins is very reminiscent in its quieter moments of the dialogue scenes of Kurosawa's work. Also, during the film's much talked about forty-five minute action sequence, Miike actually avoids the freneticism that often punctuates his work. It is a wise choice, given that his usual techniques wouldn't be appropriate here. At fifty, Miike is beginning to approach seniority as a filmmaker, so it is nice to see him showing us aspects of his directorial style that we have yet to witness. Other main elements of the film that deserve credit are the technical departments. Despite potential ludicrousness, we never at once don't buy the action onscreen. The village set that becomes the mousetrap for Naritsugu's is an extraordinary bit of production design, in that it is clearly a physical set that has been built, even if it has been built to bear witness to much wanton destruction. Also, the prop and costume designers have paid extraordinary attention to detail, in a job that deserves to be commend alongside The Lord Of The Rings film trilogy. Furthermore, the stunts and choreography in that battle sequence is nothing less than spectacular. Not only is it remarkable that they are able to keep this sequence of scenes going on for that long, but even more amazing is the fact that my interest was sustained throughout. I followed everything that was going on, knew who every character was and their place on the screen. Also, the film contains more outright 'Holy Shit!' moments than every other action film I have seen this year combined. In the landscape of mainstream American action cinema, the figurehead of which is Michael Bay (much to my chagrin: like it or not, he is the bar by which all contemporary action films are to be compared), 13 Assassins is a refreshing needle to the heart, giving hope for this often maligned genre and breathing life into this cynical bastard of a film critic. Finally, the film does contain three strong acting performances. Koji Yakusho's Shinzaemon is the film's anchor, and Yakusho delivers a fine performance. In playing the stock character of 'old gun brought out of retirement,' he elevates the character above the stock cliche. Also, good was Masachika Imamura, whose subdued head guard to Lord Naritsugu, Hanbei, is dogmatic in his devotion to his master. Despite never outright saying he disagrees with his Lord, or making so much as an emotional incline towards this train of thought, we still understand through his acting the character's internal conflict. The scenes with Yakusho and Imamura are comparable to De Niro and Pacino in Heat, two men on conflicting sides but with the same code of honour, and are the film's best 'acting' moments. However, the film's best performance belongs to Goro Inagaki as Lord Naritsugu. Instead of playing him up as the traditional film sadist, Inagaki plays Naritsugu as a bored child who attempts to gain pleasure from wanton destruction and extreme violence. Employing the 'less is more' acting technique, Inagaki's lack of expressiveness is an intimidating sight, and anytime he does show any semblance of emotion besides boredom, it speaks volumes. Finally (again), by the end of the film, this monster is revealed to be a three-dimensional creature, and as such Inagaki's Naritsugu is a memorable lead villain.

So, believe it or not, I did like 13 Assassins. It is a wonderful addition to Miike's already voluminous filmography. However, there are problems with it ensuring that it does not reach the peaks of true greatness. For instance, although the screenplay by Daisuke Tengan is not bad, it is seriously unbalanced. It is unfortunate that a number of the scenes stand out as filler before we get to the big action sequence. The primary problem is that there are too many characters: I hate to bring up the old dog, but lets compare this with Seven Samurai. 13 Assassins is 120 mins long, with forty-five devoted to an extended action sequence, so I make that roughly sixty to seventy-five minutes of character development with about twenty main characters. Seven Samurai is 207 minutes long, with about fifteen main characters at the most, and the final hour to the action scenes, so I make that the best part of two-and-a-half hours character development. I might be saying this in the most long-winded way possible, but the point is that while characters like Shinzaemon, Hanbei and Lord Naritsugu are well-wrote, virtually everyone else is wrote on the basis of 'this character has a spear, this character blows things up, this character is our Toshiro Mifune/Kikuchiyo type.' Also, structurally, it is a problem when your film is essentially like two different pictures, depending on what half of the film you are watching, and it is obvious that more care and attention has been put into the second half, so why should I care to watch the first to get there again?

Despite these scriptural problems that deny 13 Assassins from reaching the upper echelons, even of Miike's own catalogue, it is still a very good film. The mise-en-scene we are presented is nothing less than incredible, harking back to the tradition of action cinema that wasn't all CGI. Incidentally, the worst part of that sequence is the burning CGI buffalo, although obviously it would be animal cruelty to burn a buffalo, so the solution is get rid of the buffalo. Anyway, I though that this forty-five minute sequence was the best series of battle scenes I can remember seeing since The Lord Of The Rings trilogy. Believe me, after watching cavalry do a 90-degree turn in two seconds (I counted) in Barbarossa: Siege Lord, this is a refreshing shot in the dark. Also, you have three pretty good acting performances, and director Takashi Miike adapting his often frenetic style rather modestly and doing his earnest to ensure that his audience to engage with the film and bathe in the blood of the fallen. It is not a great film, but it is still very good, and I am happy that people outside of Miike's cult fanbase are starting to view him as not just an agent provocateur, but a highly versatile filmmaker.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 7.9/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Good (working towards my Best and Worst of the Year - still an open playing field!)

P.S. Take note that the version I have seen is the 120-minute Western release, so if you have seen the original 140-minute Japanese release, please take this into account. Also, if possible, fill me in on which of the two versions is better, if indeed you are one of the few out there who have seen both.

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Stake Land

2012-01-05T12:13:00.000-08:00

Directed by: Jim Mickle

Produced by: Derek Curl

Larry Fessenden

Screenplay by: Nick Damici

Jim Mickle

Narrated by: Connor Paolo

Starring: Connor Paolo

Nick Damici

Dannielle Harris

Kelly McGillis

Sean Nelson

Michael Cerveris

Bonnie Dennison

Music by: Jeff Grace

Cinematography by: Ryan Samul

Editing by: Jim Mickle

Distributed by: Belladonna Productions

Dark Sky Films

Release date(s): September 17, 2010 (Canada)

October 1, 2010 (United States)

June 17, 2011 (United Kingdom)

Running time: 98 minutes

Country: United States

Language: English

Production budget: $625, 000

Box office revenue: $33, 245

So, Happy New Year to everyone! Of course, me being my usual disorganised self, am reviewing movies from December 2011 in January 2012. Therefore, this review and the one I am doing for Takashi Miike's 13 Assassins will be as part of the month of December, and in due course followed by my Movie Of The Month for December. Also, January is my final month of reviewing of the year, so some cramming is in order. I have already seen David Fincher's The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo adaptation, and plan on seeing Mission Impossible - Ghost Protocol, The Artist, The Descendants, J. Edgar, The Way Back and Source Code. Of course, I will try to get in some others if I can. It may well end up that I have to do some capsule reviews, for I do intend to have my Best and Worst of 2011 done before the February 26 Academy Awards, so keep your eyes posted!

Today's film is Stake Land, a post-apocalytic vampire horror film from director Jim Mickle. There has been a bit of a cult build-up around this film, as it has been critically well-receieved and emerges from a particularly barren period of transition in American horror cinema. Vampires are running rampant throughout the United States, and Martin (Connor Paolo) is spared from the same fate of his family by a mysterious vampire hunter known only as 'Mister' (Nick Damici). Mister takes Martin under his wing, and the film follows their travels as they meet a number of people during their quest to 'New Eden,' a place surrounded by myth, due it's supposed absence of the vampires that populate the United States.

To start with the good with Stake Land, I must compliment the film's overall look. For a low budget film, it is surprisingly realistic in the extent of the design of its post-apocalyptic world. All of the details suggest decay and age, while little things such as the use of vampires' fangs as currency add to the believability of a vampire-run United States. Also, the costumes and props of the characters, mostly used and nearly all dirty, contribute to our idea of the 'Stake Land.' With elements like these, it helps to have strong technical filmmaking, and the cinematography by Ryan Samul contributes to our buying this fantastic concept. Much of his work consists of unbroken shots with the camera in a well-placed position, surveying the fallout of the vampire's carnage. Also, there is a fantastic three/four-minute shot involving a party (of which I will not go into details) that stands out as both a fine example of cinematography and choreography. Director Jim Mickle exudes tact and modesty in his roles as both director and editor. He lets the audience appreciate the chaos that presents onscreen, as opposed to heavily implying chaos by chaotically misjudged cutting. As such, his film ends up being a lot more contemplative and less disposable than so many similar post-apocalytic films of this nature. Finally, there are certain plot elements, such as the religious fundamentalist group The Brotherhood, who sacrifice humans to appease the vampires, that add to the atmosphere of Stake Land.

While there are good things about Stake Land, I am disappointed to say that this is a classic case of all style with no substance, or perhaps as a lowrider customiser might say, all hoods and no goods. As ever, the script is especially problematic, ensuring that beyond the film's central concept, there is not really much to be enjoyed. I mean, structurally it is not bothersome, it has a pretty consistent momentum, but the characters on the page and the dialogue written for them is rather base. Mister could be interesting, and is clearly the character who we are meant to have our chips in for, but he ain't no mysterious stranger in the vein of, say, Clint Eastwood's Man With No Name (a falsity in itself, I know, but for sake of argument). Also, every other character is written on the basis of tried and tested principles combined with a serious lack of development. These issues also translate over into the performances of the actors. While no one gives bad performances, they don't stand out as performances that make us care about these people. This is especially problematic with lead actor Connor Paolo. A couple of years ago, before he did The Social Network, Jesse Eisenberg did a similar role to much greater effect in Zombieland: better script or not, it is more or less the same role as Paolo's in Stake Land, the only difference being you do not care about Paolo's Martin. Speaking of Martin, the narration was a silly way to go. Cinema is a visual medium, and while dialogue is good, too much can be a terrible thing. Stake Land's mise-en-scene is a treat and speaks volumes, so why do we need Paolo's Martin telling us how everything is so barren, so horrible, so desolate etc, things we have gathered already? Also, the score by Jeff Grace is way too overt for a movie of this nature. It continues more or less throughout the film, and we do not need to have every moment punctuated by either score or narration, lest we actually get a bit of silence coming in. The better examples of the post-apocalytic film genre, such as Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later and John Hillcoat's adaptation of The Road understand that silence is golden. While there are loud moments (particularly 28 Days Later) both directors understand the balance of sound and silence. I know I've went off on one, but Stake Land, while a good film, is one very, in your face, 'tell, tell, tell' picture that is as irritating as it is good.

Don't let the greater amount of words dedicated to the negative aspects of the film cloud your judgement, my fault entirely. It's just that whenever there are parts of Stake Land that are so good, particularly the overall conception of the film's mise-en-scene, a great achievement considering the low budget, it is nothing less than frustrating to see it fall on its face in so many other areas. A shoddy script, murder-by-numbers acting, and some silly artistic choices prevent Stake Land from being as good as it could have been. That said, it is a good, watchable flick worth at least one go round.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 6.3/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Content (well-slept, getting over a horrible virus I had over the Christmas holidays, looking forward to re-reading Frank Miller's Batman: Year One and then beddio! Toodles!)

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Hugo

2011-12-27T10:09:00.000-08:00

Directed by: Martin Scorsese

Produced by: Johnny Depp

Timothy Headington

Graham King

Martin Scorsese

Screenplay by: John Logan

Based on: The Invention Of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick

Starring: Asa Butterfield

Ben Kingsley

Chloe Grace Moretz

Sacha Baron Cohen

Jude Law

Christopher Lee

Helen McCrory

Michael Stuhlbarg

Emily Mortimer

Ray Winstone

Francis de la Tour

Richard Griffiths

Marco Aponte

Music by: Howard Shore

Cinematography by: Robert Richardson

Editing by: Thelma Schoonmaker

Studio(s): GK Films

Infinitum Nihil

Metropolitan Filmexport

Distributed by: Paramount Pictures (United States)

Entertainment Film Distributors (United Kingdom)

Release date(s): November 23, 2011 (United States)

December 2, 2011 (United Kingdom)

Running time: 126 minutes

Country: United States

Language: English

Budget: $150 million (approx.)

Box office revenue (as of publication): $52, 618, 914

Updates, updates, updates. So, in the wake of it being that time of year, and my buying my gifts for everyone on the 26th (hey, unemployed student living at home: i'm not minted you know!) has led to a number of new purchases. Along with my copies of The Way Back and Stake Land, I have acquired Source Code and 13 Assassins (finally), so expect reviews for them. Also, I can guarantee next month a review for The Artist: being a fan of silent cinema, this is more or less essential viewing, so here's a proposal: if I don't keep my word on seeing The Artist, I quit as a reviewer! No, really, I mean it, how many times have I made promises I don't follow through with? With my professional (a bit rich using that term, I know) reputation at stake, I know I will definitely go and see it, so keep your eyes posted!

So, the film up for dissection here is Martin Scorsese's latest picture Hugo. As same of you may know, one of my regular readers asked me to review Shutter Island last year, and I didn't get down to it but managed to see it to ensure it's consideration in my best and worst films of 2010. Now, I will be writing a full review at some point, but in short I think that it is the best thing he has done since Goodfellas, and sees Scorsese venturing successfully into uncharted waters. In the case of Hugo, I get the impression that Scorsese is bored with making conventional films, for once again he enters unexplored territory, this being his first 3D film. If I'm truly honest, I must say that I have a testy relationship with 3D film's. The only trump card in the argument for 3D's artistic prowess is Avatar, for the only other time I have genuinely enjoyed 3D in a film was it's use as a novelty/gimmick in Final Destination 5. There are so many movies, such as Toy Story 3 and this year's final Harry Potter film which prove that less is more, and that 3D is, for the most part, an unnecessary eyesore. But, 3D or no 3D, there is still a story and film to discuss: in 1931, young Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield) lives in the walls of a train station, stealing food and parts for the automaton he is attempting to repair, all the while attempting to avoid the gaze of Gustav (Sacha Baron Cohen), the station's Inspector. However, Hugo is caught by toy-shop owner Georges (Ben Kingsley), and, while developing a friendship with his goddaughter Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz), works for him in order to regain the notebook Georges has taken from him.

Taking into account that it is a 3D film, I saw it in 2D, so this is a review that correlates specifically for the 2D version. To start off, it is a visually gorgeous film. Cinematographer Robert Richardson and editor Thelma Schoonmaker's teamwork is a tremendous example of technical synchronicity, from the amazing opening series of shots into the train station that flow into one another to the final frame. Also, the film has perhaps the best mise-en-scene I have seen in a film this year. Someone (to my shame I forget who and couldn't find out through research) once said regarding the sets for Scorsese's for Gangs Of New York that we'll never see production design like this anymore. I would have agreed, but after seeing Hugo it seems that Dante Ferretti has said an emphatic 'NO!' to this statement. Ferretti has most certainly equalled his work on Gangs Of New York, particularly with the brilliantly imagined train station, its colour palette both realistic and like something, well, beautifully cinematic and hyperreal. Also, the walls of the station are intensely detailed and layered, so it is as though we are following Hugo through the pipes, ducts and clocks, obviously a metaphor for the intricacies of the human brain. Another aspect of note in the film's mise-en-scene is the costume design and make-up, which help transform the film's actors into characters that believably inhabit the film's time-space of Paris 1931. Considering all of the roles that these actors have previously played (Butterfield, the son of a prominent Nazi in The Boy With The Striped Pyjamas, Kingsley, Ghandi, Moretz, Hit-Girl in Kick-Ass, Sacha Baron Cohen, Ali G, Borat, Bruno et al), it is a serious plus that you can buy them as a homeless urchin, an elderly toy maker, a well-off young girl and an eccentric security guard respectively. Speaking of which, these actors all give fine performances. Butterfield anchors this film, delivering a performance that ensures a likability in a lead role that could have been irritating. Also, Moretz (a 'Thin White Dude' award winner) is ever reliable, and Sacha Baron Cohen delivers a batty performance that matches his meticulously chameleonic previous efforts, utterly slithering about in a role that is as funny as it is at turns surprisingly moving. Christopher Lee also graces the film with his presence, and Ray Winstone (recognisable in voice only) delivers a good bit part. However, the film's best performance is definitely that of Ben Kingsley as Georges. Kingsley is at an interesting stage of his career, because for a number of years he has been playing these really overt, scenery-chewing roles that threaten to implode both his and everyone else' in a given film. 2008 though, with his generous, naturalistic performances in Transsiberian and Fifty Dead Men Walking, marked a turning point, for he seemed to understand this, and thus, his work from then has been positive, benefiting himself and others in this reviewer's eyes. One occasionally forgets he is Shutter Island that he is so subdued. In Hugo, 'Papa' Georges is the consummation of this period of transition. Kingsley depicts all of the layers of this secretive character with great understanding. Georges is a grumpy and often intimidating old miser, but we also detect an intense sadness in Georges, who is at heart, just like Hugo, a dreamer. Never at any point do we question Kingsley as Georges, and he gives us an onscreen character to both adore and be afraid of. Finally, much of the film's triumph and control comes from the man himself, Martin Scorsese. Along with Clint Eastwood, he is a reminder of everything that is good about Hollywood cinema. Scorsese, like Columbus, is unafraid to explore uncharted waters, and is constantly coming up with new challenges for himself as a filmmaker, and once again, he breaks through to the other side and triumphs. Despite having new toys to play around with, he thinks of his audience, never one to overindulge himself. The control he exhibits here, over a picture that is both unlike and similar to his back catalogue, is nothing short of amazing: let's see any other director make two films as different as Taxi Driver and Hugo! Also, while he is of course paying tribute to cinema, Scorsese is first and foremost a storyteller, engaging the audience and with Hugo, delivering us a picture that slots itself firmly into his great filmography.

As you can see, there was a lot that I liked about Hugo. However, there is one notable flaw that, while certainly not detracting from it's status as a great film, bars Hugo at the doors of The Upper Echelon Club of movie masterpieces. I am referring to, once again, the script. John Logan is a good screenwriter. After all, earlier in the year he scribed one of the year's best scripts in Rango. However, his script for Hugo, while not being a bad piece of work, is troublesome and problematic. For starters, the film's structure is seriously misjudged. My good friend Daniel Kelly (Danland Movies) made a great point on the flabbiness of the first two acts, and while I think he argued more eloquently and was irritated greater than I, it would be a lie if I said I didn't agree with him. As such, while the final act of the film is as good a bit of cinema as you're going to get, the first two acts have a sluggish pacing, which didn't bother me at first, but by the time you reach the one-hour mark and the film has gone from Point A to Point A, it starts to get annoying and boring. Also, the dialogue is by no means outstanding, and does give the film an air of contrivance, which is a shame considering how natural, well-timed and judged Rango's dialogue came across. As mentioned, this does not take away from Hugo's status as a great movie, but it does deny it the opportunity to get that bit greater.

Aside from the film's troublesome script, Hugo is a great movie. It boasts good acting performances, particularly from Ben Kingsley. Also, there is a strong technical synchronicity between Robert Richardson and Thelma Schoonmaker, which gives the film a solid visual style. Furthermore, this is one of the, if not the best mise-en-scene I have seen in a film this year, with some excellent production design, make-up and costumes. Finally, Martin Scorsese is at that stage of his career were he has seen it all, done it all, and wants to try something new. Following on from the enigmatic genre thriller Shutter Island, Hugo is Scorsese's great endeavour into the medium of 3D cinema and stands as a good, traditional kid's adventure film. Daniel Kelly, in his own words, told me if he was a kid taken to see this movie he "would have a shitfit," referring to it's laborious pacing. Although I think it is an occasionally badly paced film, I'd like to think that one of my cousins would appreciate this fine film as opposed to trying to convert me to the Transformers cause. Words of advice: take your kids to see Hugo, because I have a hunch that they'd love a kid's movie that treats them with respect and does not patronise them. It's easy for me to jabber on about this being 'a great kid's movie,' but the fact is I'm not a kid. Please, take them to see Hugo, and I hope they enjoy the film as much as I did.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 8.5/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Content (Uni work and Reviews up to date. Booyakasha! Proof you put enough beer in a man, he can do anything!)

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1

2011-12-22T14:14:00.000-08:00

Directed by: Bill Condon

Produced by: Wyck Godfrey

Karen Rosenfelt

Stephanie Meyer

Screenplay by: Melissa Rosenberg

Based on: Breaking Dawn by Stephanie Meyer

Starring: Kristen Stewart

Robert Pattinson

Taylor Lautner

Music by: Carter Burwell

Cinematography by: Guillermo Navarro

Editing by: Virginia Katz

Studio(s): Summit Entertainment

Temple Hill Entertainment

Sunswept Entertainment

Distributed by: Summit Entertainment

Release date(s): November 18, 2011

Running time: 117 minutes

Country: United States

Language: English

Budget: $110 million

Box office revenue (as of publication): $649, 192, 542

Ok folks, updates! On Saturday, I will be going to see Sherlock Holmes: The Game Of Shadows. Also, in case you didn't know, it is that time of the year, and I have regressed into my default mood of "Bah, humbug!," so you'll have to excuse the occasional bit of cynicism in my tone. Of course, I will be seeing a number of films in the coming weeks, with Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol and The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (whose source novel I am enjoying greatly) coming out on the 26th, so keep your eyes posted.

Right, it's about time I got to putting words to my opinions, this movie having been out for a month, so let's get down to it. "Forever is only the beginning" runs the tagline for Breaking Dawn Part 1, an appropriate phrase that describes my feelings regarding The Twilight Saga. I have watched (and reviewed) every one of the films, of which I've had mixed feelings: I liked Twilight, hated New Moon and thought Eclipse was a very good film. Saying that, having now read two of the Stephanie Meyer novels, I have come to the conclusion that while there are good elements in the books (as well as catering to an untapped readership of young girls that is seriously under-catered), as I was finishing New Moon, I felt that if I had went through the book with a red pen, I could have edited this five-hundred-plus page book to closer three-hundred: Meyer is a consummate over-writer who waffles way too much and envelops the reader like a suffocating, overprotective mother, and doesn't give her children enough independence to develop their own thoughts. Anyway, this isn't a discourse on Meyer, but one of her book's adaptations, so here comes the synopsis: Bella and Edward are getting married, but on their honeymoon in Peru, Bella gets pregnant, and the foetus is growing at a furious rate, consuming her from the inside. Thus, tension is caused between Bella's new family and in the Quileute tribe, with the impregnation of a human by a vampire the final straw that broke the camel's back, or rather the vampire/werewolf pact in Forks, the Quileute's declaring war on the Cullen coven.

To start off with what is good about Breaking Dawn: Part 1, I must credit the three leads. Pattinson (who I have liked in other films) has never been good as Edward, but this is as good as he ever has been playing the role, but Kristen Stewart continues ascending the upward scale of gradually improving performances as Bella. She really has grown into the part that she was initially very awkward playing, and portrays a rather empowering female character, putting her all into the absolute hell that Bella goes through. Once again, Taylor Lautner is the glue that holds this cast together. Often slagged by some critics, I find him to have a great expressive range that is appropriate for the character arc and a strong range of emotional palette. Still a young actor, I feel Lautner has the makings of something special. I must also praise the cinematography by Guillermo Navarro. The Twilight Saga has a real lack of consistency in terms of its crews, so I do think it is good that despite the film's being the same tonally, Navarro's colour palette is still very distinctive and gives Breaking Dawn a unique flavour. Finally, I would like to congratulate the film's make-up department for their transformation of Kristen Stewart. In a movie that reeks of absurdity in parts, you can't help but wince as you watch Bella's degradation as her spawn consumes her energy. Also, Modus FX has done a wonderful, subtle bit of work in adding to Bella's pregnancy, although their work here would make one think that her pregnancy was more like a giant tumour (I mean that in a good way). Furthermore, (spoiler alert) the whole birthing scene is done excellently, capturing a deep-grained fear of pregnancy and childbirth that despite being more part of a young woman's psyche, I found very intense. The quick jump cuts, Bella soaking in sweat, terrifically overbearing sound editing, and to top it off, the nastiest caesarian birth I have ever seen, with as much grot as A Serbian Film (I kid you not), and you've got one of the most memorable scenes in a film this year.

That said, as with the other instalments of The Twilight Saga, for all the good that it has to offer, equally there can be as much bad elements that we have to swallow. For instance, Carter Burwell, whose musical compositions I do like (and with regards to the series, has been a more consistently decent composer than his New Moon counterpart Alexandre Desplat), reek of the same stench that the series emits, in that we are told everything, as opposed to figuring it out for ourselves. It's a case of 'in case you didn't know how you're supposed to feel, here's how it is.' Even the great Howard Shore suffered the same issue in Eclipse: with all these talented composers on hand, with multiple awards and nominations between them, those bastards at Summit still felt like breathing down their neck, and forcing them to work with the notorious Emotional Heartstrings Orchestra. Great job guys! Also, despite Bill Condon directing the film, if anything, the closest The Twilight Saga's adaptations has to an auteur is Melissa Rosenberg. Her screenplays have been at an inconsistent level, corresponding to the quality of the films (Twilight/Eclipse = Good:New Moon = Bad). Granted, part of the problem is the source material, but Meyer's books, as messy as they can be, have far more structure than Rosenberg's screenplay for Breaking Dawn Part 1. Structurally, the whole story revolves around certain plot points, i.e. wedding, sex, pregnancy, birth etc. These points are well developed (although I would have went further myself with the sex scenes, but hey, it's a 12A film), but they only take up about thirty to forty minutes of screen time. As such, you would think with over an hour in between there would be some decent filler, but no, everything in between is written as though they are attempting to rush from plot point A to plot point B to... you get the (plot) point. Also, being a 'talky' film, with lots of heated discussion, you would think that there would be some decent dialogue, especially regarding Bella's pregnancy. But once again, nada: the dialogue sound like something from a propaganda film. I'm not getting a bee in my bonnet about the so-called pro-life themes, but all verbal sounds in the film sound base, forced, and above all, highly patronising. All semblance of an argument is lost in the fact that the dialogue is so terrible you can't help but notice how terrible the dialogue instead of being able to pay attention to what is going on. Furthermore, speaking of plot points (this won't be a spoiler for those who haven't seen it, but those who have will know what I talking about), the whole imprinting incident is bullshit: we never quite buy 'a major character's' instantaneous transformation, and it makes the film's ending completely anticlimactic. Speaking of the ending, why rip your last shot straight out of the last shot of Avatar? How contrived does one have to be? No spoilers, just saying! Finally, while I'm still on my high horse and my Napoleon complex maxed out to eleven, I've never ever bought those CGI werewolves. They've always looked like big, furry, blobby teddy bears, as opposed to the nasty killing machines they're meant to be. Also, there is a scene with the wolf pack in a heated discussion ('heated discussion' seems to be the default Twilight mode), but they are in their wolf form and the actors depicting their human form are delivering voiceover dialogue. I'm sorry, but I was the ignorant git laughing at the back of theatre, because this scene was funnier than the entirety of Zookeeper and had me thinking about Alpha, the dog with the malfunctioning collar in Up. It was good in all the wrong ways and was a classic example of misjudged filmmaking.

I know, I know, I went off on one there, but The Twilight Saga is something that I am highly opinionated about. As much as there is devoted to the bad about the film (granted, probably too much, I got a bit carried away), there are also some enjoyable elements in Breaking Dawn Part 1. The three leads, particularly Stewart and Lautner are good, Guillermo Navarro's cinematography really elevates the status of this picture, and the transformation of Bella by the makeup and CGI teams is an astounding bit of work. Finally, the staging of the birth scene is one of the most memorable scenes in a film this year. However, by no means is it faultless, and in terms of the film adaptations of The Twilight Saga, it ranks as the second worst.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 4.9/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Contented

P.S. Dear Stephanie Meyer, I know the opinions of a (slightly) pretentious film critic will have no effect on you or your significant financial income, but please take these figures into account: over four books (not including The Short Second Life Of Brie Tanner), The Twilight Saga comes to 2492 pages. I make that an average of 623 pages per book. The less successful (but infinitely better written) vampire series The Saga Of Darren Shan, has a total of 2499 pages over it's entire series. I know, it's exactly seven pages more than your Twilight Saga, but take into account that this is over twelve books, and not four, with an average 208 pages per book. So, in conclusion, you write roughly three times as much as you should, and the primary reason for your series' continued success is because there is a massive gap in the market were teenage girls are concerned. There is good material in your books, you just have a serious tendency to waffle!

With Kind Regards

Callum 'The Thin White Dude' McCready

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - The Adjustment Bureau

2011-12-18T08:55:00.001-08:00

Directed by: George Nolfi

Produced by: George Nolfi

Chris Moore

Michael Hackett

Bill Carraro

Isa Dick Hackett

Joel Viertel

Screenplay by: George Nolfi

Based on: Adjustment Team by Philip K. Dick

Starring: Matt Damon

Emily Blunt

Music by: Thomas Newman

Cinematography by: John Toll

Editing by: Jay Rabinowitz

Studio: Media Rights Capital

Distributed by: Universal Pictures

Release date(s): March 4, 2011

Running time: 101 minutes

Country: United States

Language: English

Budget: $50.2 million

Box office revenue: $127, 869, 379

As ever, I seem to take an age between reviews, finding some lame-ass excuse to not continue with my endeavours and simply sit around (rather ironically) with cans of beer and packets of crisps watching Morgan Spurlock's Super Size Me. Anywho, I have seen The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn and Hugo, so expect to see reviews for them soon. Also, as mentioned in my previous post, I will be starting a new blog in which I cast myself as a sort of despotic producer with every tool at his disposal, and proposing to you my fantasy adaptations from a number of sources into the medium of film. My first post will be my 'adaptation' of Metal Gear Solid, so (in keeping with the buzz-phrase of the new blog), keep your eyes open!

Okay, today we're getting down to reviewing The Adjustment Bureau. I've been talking about reviewing The Adjustment Bureau for a couple of months since picking up a copy for £5 in Tesco a while back, but before I get down to it, here's a bit of a preamble to give you some context. The film is adapted from the short story Adjustment Team by Philip K. Dick, who is probably hands-down my favourite author. I first fell in love with his work via A Scanner Darkly, and have been nothing than entranced by his singular visionary and accessible style. Readers, do yourselves a favour at get some of K. Dick's work, because it is pure gold dust. With a (primarily) science-fiction author as it's source, Matt Damon as its star and having emerged in the wake of Inception, the geniuses of film marketing have promoted The Adjustment Bureau under Total Film's silly buzz phrase "Bourne Meets Inception." For starters, whoever came up with that editorial wonder seems to have come up with it so that it makes the UK DVD cover. The big problem though is that it gives the completely wrong impression of the film itself, so readers, go in with an open mind and do not give in to preconceived ideas you may have got from this. The Adjustment Bureau follows David Norris (Matt Damon), an up-and-coming politician, whose campaign crashes whenever photos of him mooning former classmates at a reunion party emerge. On the plus side, he meets Elise (Emily Blunt), a woman who he immediately engages and becomes infatuated with. However, after the two cross paths again, a group of men (the eponymous Adjustment Bureau) threaten David to never see Elise again, as it is not part of 'the plan.' As such, the plot advances from this point on.

To start off with my review for The Adjustment Bureau, it must be said that despite the "Bourne Meets Inception" label, at heart this film is first and foremost a romance. In this aspect, Matt Damon and Emily Blunt are terrific. I've always liked Matt Damon, and his role as Norris, both as the lover and the charismatic politician, shows yet another layer to his talent. In the case of Emily Blunt, it's easy to understand why Norris becomes so infatuated with her: she oozes charm and sexuality, not in an overt manner, but in the way that actresses such as Grace Kelly and Ingrid Bergman did, through naturalism. You can't help but feel good every time the two share the same space onscreen, as their romance comes across with conviction and genuine, which is more than can be said for most romance films. They deliver their dialogue as though everything is pure improvisation, and it makes for some great cinema. Also, George Nolfi, who had previously scribed The Bourne Ultimatum, handles this, his debut feature, very well. It would have been easy to overindulge in certain aspects of the story, but Nolfi keeps it fine, and has a great sense of pacing. Throughout you get this feeling of a momentous forward drive that doesn't stop the film's conclusion. John Toll's cinematography also contributes to this. It has a wonderful look about it, capturing the film's drama and the romance between David and Elise, but also having the ability to switch tones/moods. The lighting in the scenes with the Adjustment Bureau are suitably dark and expressionistic, while David and Elise, quite literally, bring light to the lives of one another. Finally, the production design is to be noted, for despite this being a 'science-fiction' film, it is only science-fiction in the loosest sense of the term: the design and locations embed the film firmly into the real world, adding to the paranoiac tension that is prescient throughout.

As much as I like The Adjustment Bureau, there are a number of issues involved with this production. Although Damon and Blunt deliver their dialogue well, George Nolfi's script is very flawed. Admittedly, this movie is a tough sell, and it is admirable in it's attempts to do something different, but the script tries to cover too many different topics and doesn't end up bringing much of substance to the plate. It deals with romance, politics, paranoia, free will, predestination, Christian themes and the idea of omnipresent forces behind the scenes. In dealing with that many topics, while catering to a certain audience, there are times when The Adjustment Bureau falls flat on its face. Too much is shoved in to deal with in ninety-nine minutes, and they are not dealt with in any great detail. If it had been made to be a 130-140 minute film, it may have worked better and they could have a stronger story, as opposed to presenting us something that feels like an oversized suitcase. Also (without spoiling the film), the ending is an anticlimactic, botched affair that just stops as opposed to giving the film any true sense of conclusion. Finally, I was not a fan of the use of Thomas Newman's compositions. Hear me out: I did like Newman's work, I just wasn't a fan of how it was implemented in the film. In the post-production process, I feel there was a lot of watering down done, and in the finished product, which remains a challenging movie (in a good way) no matter how much tinkering has been done, this sense of artificiality comes through. I think that they simply were stuck between a rock and a hard place, dealing with a tough sell and compromising to try and make it appeal to a mainstream audience. Nowhere is this more prominent than in the use of Newman's music, which is placed in scenes 'appropriately' to imply, rather overtly, what we should be feeling. Once again, EHO (Emotional Heartstrings Orchestra) makes an appearance, gouging an otherwise great movie.

It's a shame, because I think The Adjustment Bureau is a very good film. Damon and Blunt give the audience one of the most legitimate screen romances I have seen in some time. Also, George Nolfi has an efficiency about his direction, and the film has some great cinematography and production design. However, the script comes across as watered down and compromised, while the use of Thomas Newman's music (not the music itself) ensures that we are being told what we are meant think and what to feel. Much as I like it (how can you not like a film with Terence Stamp pitching in a great bit part?), The Adjustment Bureau will not rank among the great adaptations of K. Dick, such as Blade Runner, Total Recall, Minority Report or A Scanner Darkly. That said, it is certainly not in the category of 2003's abysmal Paycheck, and while I feel it may be forgotten about, deserves to be remembered as a good solid film.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 7.0/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Excited (off from Uni, lots of films to review!)

P.S. Dear Total Film, please don't use silly 'poster phrases' like "Bourne Meets Inception" to describe this film: it is nowhere near as much a science-fiction film as Inception, and is only a science-fiction in the basest sense. Also, it is a bit stupid to put Bourne onto any film that stars Matt Damon. That's like marketing The Departed as 'Bourne Meets Goodfellas' or Invictus under 'Bourne Meets Mandela!'

The Thin White Dude Makes Another Update As An Excuse For Not Having Posted Any Reviews!

2011-12-16T14:07:00.000-08:00

Alright, folks, I have been pretty busy in University of late, and thus haven't been updating as regularly as possible. That is not to say that the reviews aren't still going on: far from it! I've got a quota of my own to meet, and have at least a good month and a half left to go.

Next in line are my reviews for The Adjustment Bureau, The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn and Hugo, so, as ever keep your eyes posted!

Also, I am going to start a new blog (under The Thin White Dude moniker), in which I effectively cast myself as a producer and create these fantasy line-ups for who I would choose for certain parts (director, screenwriter, cast etc) in the creative process. Self-imposed rules are simple: I will suggest a contemporary player for a part in the production, and one from the history of cinema. Therefore, you can get some idea of what would be a 'true' fantasy adaptation and a 'realistic' adaptation. I will beginning this with my proposed 'fantasy' adaptation for the video game Metal Gear Solid, and, in coining a new catchphrase, keep your eyes wide open!

P.S. Once again, to Jack's complete lack of surprise, (god knows I sound like a broken record), apologies. The review for Shutter Island is not just some pipe dream, it exists in some form or another, and it's just a matter of not being so lazy as to translate them into terms of universal understanding!

Toodles!

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Age Of Heroes

2011-12-12T07:47:00.000-08:00

Directed by: Adrian Vitoria

Produced by: James Brown

Jamie Carmichael

Christopher Figg

Starring: Danny Dyer

Sean Bean

Izabella Miko

Music by: Michael Richard Plowman

Cinematography by: Mark Hamilton

Editing by: Chris Gill

Joe Parsons

Distributed by: Metrodome Distribution

Release date: May 20, 2011 (United Kingdom)

Running time: 90 minutes

Country: United Kingdom

Language: English

Budget: (N/A)

Box office revenue: (N/A)

Hey hey, updates time! So, I've now seen Breaking Dawn, and I'd recommend keeping an eye out for my review because I have very strong opinions regarding the film. Also, this week I'll be going to see Hugo, and possibly Albatross and Puss In Boots. Once again, I'd like to reiterate how amazing a film Casablanca is. I know it is forever on the 'lists of lies' as one of the greatest films ever, but it truly is something. On a final note, this year I've keeping on schedule with regards to my 5th annual best and worst of the year, so keep an eye out for my hall of fame inductions, coming in January, and the complete list of awards in February, before the Oscars, so keep your eyes posted!

Right, today we have Age Of Heroes, a new release from Metrodome, starring the 'majestic' Danny Dyer and the majestic Sean Bean in a war film which purports to have been based on the true-life exploits on Ian Fleming's forming of the 30 Commando Unit. To give this some context, I was recently at Cinemagic's Mark Kermode Film Night, and in the Q and A section the good Dr. asked the audience to suggest their best and worst film's of the year. One member of the audience, while nominating Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes as his favourite of the year, was unanimous in his opinion that Age Of Heroes was the worst of the year. I had bought this film beforehand and had it waiting for review for a period of time, and if I'm frank, this audience member's opinion didn't do anything to endear the film to me, before I had even seen it. Furthermore, it gave Kermode a good excuse to do his entertainingly terrible impression of Danny Dyer, who has threatened to beat him up as a result of this ludicrous impersonation. In the interest of fairness, I did like Dyer in The Business and Human Traffic, so despite it being rather easy to take the piss, I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Dyer stars as Corporal Rains, who is sent to military prison for disobeying orders and assaulting an officer. Due to be court-martialled, Rains escapes after holding up Major Jones (Sean Bean) and confessing his dream to be a Commando. Impressed by his tenaciousness, Jones offers him a spot on the unit he is gathering if he passes the intensive training.

To start off with what is good about the film, I can't say they went wrong in casting Sean Bean as a tough disciplinarian leader of a Commando unit. Now that Bean is in his fifties, he has that rugged look about him in the same way Lee Marvin had, but you can still legitimately buy him as a badass you shouldn't mess with. He may not receive many awards, but Bean is most definitely a fine actor. Also, the film has some good locations. For a movie that is supposed globe-trotting and seeing these Commandos go through various hard-ships, it is always good to have believable locations, and there is no question that it does. In particular, the intensive training in Scotland is suitably believable and dirty, while the snow of occupied Norway helps you get the idea of what these men are having to content with. This is important in a shootout near the end of the film (the shorter one, not the ambush at night), creating a sense, albeit temporary, of tension. This is all the good I have to say about Age Of Heroes: it's not especially bad in the vein of Friedberg and Seltzer or Barbarossa: Siege Lord, but it is unremarkable.

Now, despite these good parts, Age Of Heroes is a few slices good and many slices rancid. Let's start with Danny Dyer. Firstly, I'll reiterate (lest he threatens to knock something across my canister), I like Dyer in The Business and Human Traffic, but he's rubbish here. His character is poorly written (more of which later), but even still he manages to stamp his own unique brand of terrible on the role. At the start of the film, we get him being a bit of a rebellious, no BS soldier, same old. However, in military prison, he meets up with an ex-Commando, and all of a sudden the seeds have been planted for his pipe dreams to become a Commando: from wanting to go home to trudging around in Norway in less than five minutes of screen time is ludicrous, and Dyer acts this story arc as though he is a naive teenager. He might look like a boy, but Danny, you're a thirty-three year old man! The scenes in which he is crying because despite his determination, he is exhausted, are positively laughable. Not helping is his constant "Thank you, sir," to Sean Bean: if he was black, there would be national outrage for depicting such a "Thank you, boss" character is today's world. Minstrels were the first thing that came to mind watching Dyer here. So, Dyer, terrible, as is everyone bar Bean, but I won't use too much space to attack them as their parts are smaller and by rule of thumb less irritating than Dyer. Next in the line of fire is the script. As mentioned in relation to Dyer, the characters are written terribly, all written with the basest personality traits, though so base that you can't differentiate between anyone else, so that any time someone is knocked off and we get some terrible incidental dialogue in the vein of "(insert name here) is dead," you end up thinking 'who?' Also, structurally it gets along way too fast, going through the proceedings without a care for the establishment of a legitimate plot or cast of characters. The ending, for instance, is a horrendously botched affair that doesn't so much wrap up the film as sever the film's already weak pulse. Tonally too the film is a mess. We have the whole 'Dirty Dozen' scenario, which really originated with Kurosawa's Seven Samurai, with an ensemble cast going on a mission, a tried-and-tested scenario that has worked well in other films such as Aliens and Ocean's Eleven. However, mixed in with that, the filmmakers attempt to depict a 'horrors of war' film. There is a scene in which a group of actors (who have the unenviable task of playing Nazis in the wake of Christoph Waltz' Hans Landa) jovially execute an entire family while drinking and cavorting, all filmed rather voyeuristically by a camera. Frankly, while the 'Dirty Dozen' scenario is flimsy at best, the 'horrors of war' part of the film comes across as a poor man's Come And See, a film I'd sincerely recommend that everyone see at least once. Finally, to top this all off, we have a terrible 'Isn't this glorious and heroic?' score from Michael Richard Plowman, which sounds like the Royal Military Orchestra by way of Pearl Harbour, unquestionably Hans Zimmer's worst score.

My interest in Age Of Heroes is probably reflected in the rhetoric that I have used to review it. It is not an especially bad movie, with Sean Bean always a watchable screen presence and a relatively believable mise-en-scene, but, Jesus, is it a consistently unremarkable and dull film. It displays all of Danny Dyer's negative points, has a shoddy script, a score that sounds like it has been lifted from another movie and given a remix. Furthermore, the 'special' effects, which have nothing special about them, are terrible, and it is directed with all the detachment and lack of passion of a relationship between Michael Bay and the Transformers franchise, although frankly these two I'd say have a better sex life. Indeed, when the new Transformers movie is better than Age Of Heroes, you know you're are in far trouble. Simply unremarkable in every which way possible.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 2.8/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Glad (to see the back end of this movie: let us never speak of this foul creature again!)

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Tabloid

2011-12-09T12:05:00.000-08:00

Directed by: Errol Morris

Produced by: Julie Ahlberg

Ajae Clearway

Max Daly

Robert Fernandez

Mark Lipson

Music by: John Kusiak

Cinematography by: Robert Chappell

Editing by: Grant Surmi

Studio(s): Air Loom Enterprises

Moxie Pictures

Distributed by: Sundance Selects (United States)

Dogwoof (United Kingdom)

Release date(s): July 15, 2011 (United States)

November 11, 2011 (United Kingdom)

Running time: 88 minutes

Country: United States

Language: English

Budget: (N/A)

Box office revenue (as of publication): $686, 288 (domestic gross only)

Schedule/filler paragraph coming up! Right, I've now seen Age Of Heroes, The Adjustment Bureau and (by the time of posting) The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn. Also, there will no doubt be more on the way, it being the holidays and all. On another film-related note, on Wednesday I had the pleasure of watching (on the big screen too!) Casablanca for the first time. The film was wonderful, with top-notch performances, an excellent script and controlled direction. Here's a question to those of you who have seen the film: what do you think of Casablanca (in the film) being a sort of purgatory, with Rick's Cafe Americain being a waiting room the film's characters inhabit before either going to Heaven or Hell? Give me your thoughts, as I find it a real puzzle-box of a film. And by the way, keep your eyes posted!

Alright, the gourmet of the day is Tabloid, the new documentary film by Errol Morris. To my shame, Errol Morris has been a blip on my moviegoing radar, so this was my first experience in ever seeing one of his films. I saw Tabloid in the Queens Film Theatre with one of my three remaining free tickets which I received as a gift for my birthday, and I must note that I did appear to have missed the first few minutes, despite being on time for the screening. The subject of Morris' eleventh feature is Joyce McKinney, a former Miss Wyoming, who in 1979 became a major tabloid sensation in England after being accused of raping and kidnapping her former fiance Kirk Anderson, who had left America to become a Mormon missionary.

Well, if you are of the same opinion as me, you'll find that Morris has selected a truly astounding subject for his picture. Joyce McKinney herself (who is now currently in the process of suing Morris) is a character, telling her story with genuine wit and humour. It is obvious that she understands the absurdity of what went on, but Morris also gives her room to be serious, and one cannot help but feel for McKinney as she explains that it was love that was her driving force. Also, there are some poignant moments as Joyce tells of the media frenzy that surrounded her in the years following the scandal, and some the tragic events of her life. Importantly, I think Morris takes a well-rounded stance on his subject, and the lines between whether or not 'The Case of the Manacled Mormon' was an instance of rape and kidnapping become blurred. After all, as McKinney notes, Kirk Anderson was a large man of six-foot-four; Morris treats the 'official' tabloid headlines with a pinch of salt. Also, in depicting the media frenzy, Grant Surmi's editing is done in such a kinetic style, with layer-upon-layer of newspaper clippings being ruggedly (in a good way) pasted on top of one another and various other mediums presented, we, like Joyce, can't help but feel overwhelmed. The editing ensures that Tabloid has a pretty consistent pace throughout, and the usually dull talking heads are given life by Surmi's pasting and the fast cuts ensure that there is always a certain level of tension. The final thing I'd like to note of worth with Tabloid is the visual effects department. Eric Demeusy's 2D animation is a pleasure to behold, and gives the film a number of humorous moments, while Kurt Lawson's excellent digital composition ensures that we are always presented with a visually interesting film.

If there is one major problem that I do have with Tabloid, it's that not all sides of the story are portrayed to the same degree as Joyce McKinney's own story. For instance, despite McKinney being depicted in such a well-rounded manner you'd think she was a written character in a screenplay, the Mormons do not come off well from this film in the slightest. Although obviously there were less sources on this side of the story (Kirk Anderson refused to partake in the production), Mormonism is painted with the same, rather base brush which people seem to love using on Scientology. As far as I could tell, the Mormons who 'brainwashed' Kirk Anderson were devil-worshipping cult members preparing the poor man for sacrifice in a wicker man. Also, the structure of the film brings with it a certain repetitiousness, which unfortunately means for parts you are struggling to follow it, as it can feel numbing. As much as I like the pacing, this structure keeps the film locked airtight, without any air to breath. Finally, it makes a film, which is a good, short length of eight-eight minutes, feel at least fifteen longer.

Tabloid is an occasionally problematic work. Mormonism is presented in such a horrible manner, and there is no real middle-ground objective source to adequetly discuss their side of the story. In their case, it is borderline propagandist and unintentionally funny. Also, the film's structure can be repetitious and numbing, contributing to the film feeling longer than it really is. Despite these issues, we still have a very good film. The subject of Joyce McKinney and the various media portrayals of the 'Mormon Sex in Chains' case is genuinely fascinating stuff. I didn't have a clue about this case beforehand, and was awestruck by the topic matter. Grant Surmi's editing has a consistent pace about it, and the way he constructs the multimedia sources, mixed with the fast cuts, give the film a real kinetic feel. Finally, the visual effects animation (also by Steven Do, who I forgot to mention earlier) and digital composition, ensures that Errol Morris' film is always pretty watchable and visually interesting.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 7.4/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Relaxed (finished review, box of Pringles, Casablanca on the way!)

The Thin White Dude's Movie Of The Month: November 2011 - Life In A Day

2011-12-06T03:34:00.000-08:00

Andrew McDonald (and the YouTube community) helms this great documentary that covers just about everything we need to know. Some of the best of moments of this year in film are to be found here, and in terms of the postmodern, information-era documentary, I think this might well be the best one. Engrossing viewing, highly entertaining and very touching, Life In A Day is a wonderful achievement in cinema history.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 8.4/10

Runner-Up: I Saw The Devil - A brutal, intense thriller from Kim Jee-woon boasting two fine performances from Lee Byung-hun and Choi Min-sik

Second-Most Deadly Disease: Suck - Not a bad film, but makes no effort to be consistently average

Avoid Like The Plague: 5 Days Of War - Ridiculous balderdash that makes you want to stick on Cliffhanger to purge you of your sins

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - The Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence)

2011-12-05T12:57:00.000-08:00

Directed by: Tom Six

Produced by: Tom Six

Ilona Six

Screenplay by: Tom Six

Starring: Laurence R. Harvey

Music by: James Edward Barker

Eilam Hoffman

Cinematography by: David Meadows

Studio: Six Entertainment Company

Distributed by: Bounty Films (United Kingdom)

IFC Midnight (United States)

Release date(s): September 22, 2011 (Fantastic Fest)

October 7, 2011 (United States)

Running time: 87 minutes (International Cut)

84 minutes (United Kingdom Cut)

Country(s): United Kingdom

Netherlands

Language: English

Budget: (N/A)

Box office revenue (as of publication): $123, 043

Alright, as mentioned my previously posted review for Drive Angry, this will be my final review for the month of November, a summary for which will be posted later on. In getting on with December, I have seen Tabloid, Errol Morris' new film, and by the time I publish this will have seen Age Of Heroes. Also, I have screenings pitched in for Tintin, Breaking Dawn and Hugo, the big blockbusters out there. On another note, I'd recommend you get down to listening to some of the music off of Gary Numan's new album Dead Son Rising: there are a number of very cinematic tracks, and given that he has recently expressed thoughts about doing film soundtracks, they are of paramount interest to anyone into film music. So, as usual, by all means, keep your eyes posted!

Well, the gruel that we have been served up on our dish today is second Human Centipede film. Last year, director Tom Six released the first film to rather mixed reviews, but I found myself liking it as it didn't try to be anything more than it was: it's a brutal piece of exploitation schlock, and unlike the truly awful A Serbian Film, lacked the self-importance that often plagues these films, which all too often appeal to the audience and imply there is more to the film that what's on the surface. Centipede 2 has caused a stir in that it was rejected an '18' certificate here in the United Kingdom. Only two films in the past two decades have had this 'privilege,' so Centipede 2 has joined an elite group of films that have managed to be banned by the usually lenient BBFC. Following on from the tone of the original, with the sequel (which I frankly thought was milking the concept dry), Six, who claimed Centipede 2 made the original Centipede look like "My Little Pony," turns the concept on it's head, with Laurence R. Harvey playing the lead character Martin, a short, English, fat and asthmatic security guard still living with his mother (Vivien Bridson), who has become obsessed with the original Human Centipede film. Taking inspiration from Dieter Laser's Dr. Heiter, he decides to one-up, or rather 'nine-up' Heiter, opting to construct his own, twelve-person centipede.

It may come as a surprise to some of you, but there was a lot about Centipede 2 that I liked. As was the case with Laser, Six has unearthed an actor who is not famous, but fits their role like a glove. In what I would guess is his first picture (I have come up short on unearthing information), Laurence R. Harvey gives a great performance as Martin. Visually, he is perfect for the role, but it is the level of detail he gives the character that makes him so fascinating. Wheezing, spluttering and coughing, all with sweat perpetually dripping from his brow, Harvey conveys a character who is both realistic and can be sympathised with, but is also like something from the deepest recesses of our nightmares. Furthermore, Harvey tells Martin's story by acting, with a distinct lack of dialogue, and projecting to the audience in a visual manner. Harvey can be credited for making the movie watchable, but also of praise is the cinematography and editing. In contrast with the previous film, this is shot with a fast, moving camera, shaking along all the way. Normally I'm against the shaky cam, but here it captures Martin's fragile mental state and tells a story, as opposed to it being about technique. Also, Six's decision to edit the film, shot in colour, to a monochrome colour palette is a terrific stylistic turn. With the construction of the Centipede being shot in heavy light, colour would have been too much, and it is certainly much more unnerving with removal of the colour's we would normally think of in these situations (yes, I regularly wind up the tail end of a Human Centipede!). Also, as it should be, the make-up is suitably nasty. Although, of course, "100% Medically Inaccurate," the centipede's construction is full of enough grot, vomit, fecal matter etc. that we do buy into the whole thing. The centipede's ante is upped too, as Martin struggles and occasionally botches the process of his creature's creation, making for some horrible (yet fascinating) scenarios. Finally, after the success of the first film, Centipede 2 marks Tom Six as a force to be reckoned with in the horror genre. His directing method is unique, in that he makes 'pure' horror cinema: with absolutely everything on the surface, he invites a viewer's participation in his madness, and as such they apply their own meanings to his work. Far from ramming his messages down our throats, the application of such excessiveness gives us room to think about the picture. It is refreshing to see a director who invites such viewer participation and lives up to his word with suitably nasty concepts. I personally invite and applaud Six to continue with his endeavours in genre cinema.

So, as I said, there was a lot I like about Human Centipede 2. However, despite these strengths, it can be a very flawed film. For instance, Tom Six's script is pretty poor. The film is at it's best whenever Harvey just fills up the screen, but having all these characters pop up, display the basest of emotions with the basest of dialogue, only to become a part of the Centipede is rather silly. Would it not be more appropriate to let the audience engage with them, so that we have an idea in our heads of them as people, thus making Martin's abusiveness toward them more repugnant? Also, while I like the central concept, I think the inclusion of a certain 'actor' from the first film (no spoilers) is pushing the idea too far. This overtness in terms of self-referentiality does tend to overbear whenever Six's script gets a little more indulgent. Also, frankly there was no need to explain the origin of Martin's fractured personality: Harvey already told us as much, without writing in a doctor that resembles the great Alan Moore, just in case we didn't know already. Much as I like Six, I think he really needs to learn how to write a script that is not sold solely on the strength of the film's central concept. Also, I think that the film's ending is botched, as it's nature implies a negation of events, and thus takes away from the horror, and indeed, importance of what we have just witnessed. I really do think Six exists on a different plane from other human beings (and I mean that as a compliment), so it would help if he paid attention to other people, for as much as he may find his film's amusing, most people don't: bearing that in mind, I think he would have made a better film. The script is really my only major problem with the film, but it is enough of a problem to have made me want to personally rewrite it myself as it is the cinematic equivalent of a gaping knife wound to the film's overall body.

Nevertheless, despite what I feel to be a rather shoddy script which does significantly detract from the film, I did like it. I forgot to mention the terrific minimalist score by James Edward Barker and Eilam Hoffman, but there are also many other fine aspects. Laurence R. Harvey gives an amazing lead performance, technically the film is spot on, and I think that considering the decisions he made in bringing this to the screen, Tom Six is a directorial force to be reckoned with. The pressure on for him to deliver his anticipated third and final part to the Centipede trilogy, as I feel that the script covers too much and frankly I worry there won't be anywhere else to go. Mark Olsen, writing for The Los Angeles Times, makes a valid point in arguing that "Six has more or less already contorted himself into The Human Ouroboros": there really is only so far you can go with this, and I would recommend that Six start thinking of new ideas, because another Centipede film could be flogging a dead horse. Also, on the basis of this script, we could be in for trouble. Nevertheless, I'll be keeping a close eye of Six, as Human Centipede 2 is an enjoyable exploitation flick in the purest sense of the word.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 6.9/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Tired (Radioplay finished, review finished: me need sleep!)

P.S. Vivien Bridson plays a great bit-part as Martin's mother

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Drive Angry

2011-11-29T17:14:00.000-08:00

Directed by: Patrick Lussier

Produced by: Michael de Luca

Screenplay by: Todd Farmer

Patrick Lussier

Starring: Nicholas Cage

Amber Heard

William Fichtner

Billy Burke

David Morse

Music by: Michael Wandmacher

Cinematography by: Brian Pearson

Editing by: Patrick Lussier

Devin C. Lussier

Studio(s): Millenium Films

Nu Image

Saturn Films

Distributed by: Summit Entertainment (United States)

Lionsgate (United Kingdom)

Metropolitan Filmexport (France)

Release date(s): February 25, 2011

Running time: 100 minutes

Country: United States

Language: English

Budget: $45-$50 million

Box office revenue: $28, 931, 401

Okay dokey, I've seen The Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence), and as a teaser for the full review (published later this week), I will say that I did like the film and think Tom Six is a director to be watched in this decade. On another note, I'm really enjoying Mark Kermode's The Good, The Bad And The Multiplex. Unlike his first book, which was essentially his autobiography, this stands as a brilliant study of the state of the art form of cinema in it's contemporary (and past) form, punctuated by his great wit and should grace any film lovers library. Kermode and my friend Daniel Kelly (of Danland Movies) are among the few I would personally recommend as alternate opinions to my own. Of course, every critic has an alternative opinion (incidentally, I wouldn't rule out a read of Armond White: no one has a monopoly of opinion, and White's beliefs are as legitimate as anyone else's, even if some of them seem bonkers), but I just have my preferences, both as a reader and member of the critical community. But, moving swiftly on, in closure (and keeping with tradition), keep your eyes posted!

Getting on with the shizzle, here we have on the operating table Drive Angry. This film was released earlier in the year and stars Nicholas Cage, who last year reminded his fans with Bad Lieutenant: Port Of Call New Orleans and Kick-Ass that despite all the crap we've had to sit through, he's a fine actor. He and his ever reliable co-star Amber Heard head up this film by Patrick Lussier, most famous for White Noise: The Light (very nearly my first ever worst film of the year) and My Bloody Valentine's 3D remake. Also shot in 3D, although I got the version I saw was in 2D (poor me), Drive Angry follows John Milton (Nic Cage: get the reference), a mysterious stranger of sorts, is seeking Jonah King (Billy Burke), a satanic cult leader who murdered his daughter and took her baby. Along the way, he meets Piper (Amber Heard), beating up her nasty boyfriend and heading on the road with her to complete his mission. Amidst all this, there is another mysterious stranger who goes by the name of The Accountant (William Ficthner), is on the search for Milton for unknown reasons.

Starting with the good, Drive Angry excels in a department that many others fail: it succeeds in being a legitimate 'grindhouse' film, unlike examples such as Quentin Tarantino's Death Proof, and importantly, it isn't trying to be a grindhouse film. It is a suitably nasty, crazy film full of car chases, explosions, and most notably, a Manson family-esque religious cult. The religious aspect is one of the films greatest strengths, adding to it's inherent ridiculousness and some way making it stand out from the pack. Cage's 'Godkiller' gun and his ability to take ridiculous amounts of pain tie in well to the movie's undertones. Also, being a film of this genre, it is good to see that the set-pieces are well choreographed and that the stunt teams have done fine work here to make this as entertaining a film as they possibly can. Although not up the standard that Fast Five has set for the genre, the chases are bounds above those you would see in most other Hollywood films. Furthermore, Brian Pearson's cinematography has given the film a nice visual flair which ensures that it is always watchable. Speaking of watchable, I'd finally like to point out Amber Heard. At the risk of sounding like a creep (and not ruling out her attractiveness), every movie I see her in she puts the maximum amount of effort into her part. Her role as Piper is the kind of defiant 'girl power' part that makes for a nice change (although it should be the norm) from normal depictions of female stereotypes. One of Drive Angry's greatest pleasures is seeing her punch her boyfriend who has been sleeping with another woman, and laughing as he hits her back. Heard is never anything less than impressive in this film, and is Drive Angry's stand-out actor.

However, as much as I think there are good points about Drive Angry, I feel too that there are a number of negative points. The foremost offender is Todd Farmer and Patrick Lussier's script, which aside from the religious aspect, is completely murder-by-numbers. Every character onscreen is two-dimensional and with the exception of Heard's Piper, you never buy as people to sympathise with or believe in. Billy Burke's Jonah King is the most horrendous example, and feels like he was written by a statistician with a check book/chequebook. Also, the dialogue has the problem of causing the audience to not be able to distinguish between serious and comic scenes. This is problematic when you get an actor like Cage, who puts a lot of effort into every role, but unfortunately his efforts, due to the poor script, have made him look silly. Also of issue is the editing by (once again) Patrick Lussier and Devin C. Lussier. As a film that was clearly designed for 3D, with lots of tyres and pokey things flying towards the screen, having these gimmicks in the 2D version of the film is pointless. Furthermore, the portrayal of Cage's inner turmoil is achieved with stupid (and visually irritating) dissolves between Cage and his daughter's murder. Frankly, a simple, old-fashioned series of fast cuts would have done. Also, and this may be as much the fault of the CGI team, there are some awful special effects. I've seen some between computer effects this side of Flight Simulator '98: (no spoilers) watch the final shots of the film, and you can't say they don't look hokey. It is problems like this that seriously detract from an otherwise enjoyable experience.

Drive Angry is a real mixed bag of a movie: on the one hand, it is a genuine grindhouse picture, with strong religious undertones, some entertainingly choreographed action set-pieces, good cinematography and a rather good turn from Amber Heard. Despite this, it is plagued by a shoddy script, that does not benefit it's actors whatsoever, has a number of issues in the transfer from 3D to 2D (can one version not be enough?) and has some insufferably bad editing and CG special effects. You may or may not enjoy this film, as even with its problems, it's watchable. Saying that, my words of advice would ask you to be wary and take Drive Angry with a pinch of salt. Still, it's better than White Noise: The Light.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 5.3/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Excited (I've got set-dancing tonight!)

P.S. This is juvenile I know, but I can't but laugh at the composer's name: Wandmacher = 'Wand-maker.' Look, I found it funny, ok!

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Beautiful Lies

2011-11-28T13:29:00.000-08:00

Directed by: Pierre Salvadori

Produced by: Philippe Martin

Screenplay by: Benoit Graffin

Pierre Salvadori

Starring: Audrey Tautou

Nathalie Baye

Sami Bouajila

Music by: Philippe Eidel

Cinematography by: Gilles Henry

Editing by: Isabelle Devinck

Studio(s): Les Films Pelleas

TF1 Films Production

Tovo Films

Distributed by: Pathe (France)

Trinity Film (United Kingdom)

Release date(s): December 8, 2010 (France)

August 12, 2011 (United Kingdom)

Running time: 100 minutes

Country: France

Language: French

Budget: (Unavailable)

Box office revenue: (Unavailable)

Alright gang, updates updates! The review following this will be one for Drive Angry. Next on the itinerary will be The Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence), which I am bracing myself to watch tonight. Tomorrow, I'll be watching either The Adjustment Bureau or The Way Back, so keep your eyes... wait! I'm not finished! On another note, for my creative writing course I will be working on a radio play, which I'm looking forward to creating. If all goes well (i.e. if I'm able to overcome my impatience/aversion to technology), I might well put it on the blog for you all to sample. Toodles!

Okay, so here we have Beautiful Lies. Earlier on in the year, I stated my intention to see it, but unfortunately missed it (one must take critics' words with a pinch of salt!) due to no reason other than my own inability to keep up with the amount of films coming out. At least that's the excuse I'm sticking with! Anyway, the film stars Audrey Tautou as Emilie, a young woman running her own hairdressing salon. After throwing an anonymous love letter (from one of her workers, Jean, played by Sami Bouajila) in the trash, she decides to send the letter to her forlorn, depressed mother Maddy (Nathalie Baye), still stricken by her husband's decision to leave her. The letter, which failed to move it's intended recipient Emilie, revitalises Maddy's love for life, and as is expected with a French whimsical comedy, all sorts of hilarious entanglements ensue.

Now, please do not take that as sarcasm. I know that is something that sounds like it comes from the film's marketing/financial department, whose tactics I usually take the piss out of. The fact is that I enjoyed watching Beautiful Lies. In terms of dialogue, this is up there with Bridesmaids in snappiness and quotability. Also, it doesn't feel forced whatsoever, and ensures that these do feel like real people. This realisation is further hammered in by three strong performances. Audrey Tautou has always been adapt at this material, and this further proves it. She carries herself with wonderful charm and elegance, while not being afraid to speak her mind or be a nasty bitch. Her Emile is well-rounded and three-dimensional, and her delivery of the script's dialogue is note-perfect. Also good is Nathalie Baye, whose Maddy makes the most dramatic emotional shifts in the film, but manages to keep the audience engaged. Like her onscreen daughter, Baye exudes charm and charisma, delivering a fine performance. Although to a lesser extent, as the women take centre-stage, Sami Bouajila elevates what could have been the film's worst performance to that of one that is both sympathetic and humorous. Considering the number of rather embarrassing (and entertaining) set-pieces he usually ends up being the butt-end of, he does a fine job in ensuring that he doesn't become the comic-fodder stock-character. Director Pierre Salvadori handles this with efficiency and grace, his directorial stamp giving the film the sense of pace and tension that a film of this nature requires. He must also be credited for ensuring the film's comic timing and that it doesn't, like so many other comedies, fall flat on it's face into the pitfalls of the genre. Finally, at a running length of a hundred minutes, it is exactly as long as it needs to be, no longer or shorter.

That said, while I think that Beautiful Lies is a highly admirable comedy, the film is by no means without its flaws. As a whimsical comedy, unfortunately there is only so far that it goes, and there is a real sense of a tentative approach in not staring outside of what is good about the genre. It really felt as if they weren't trying to do anything new or original, no matter how well they did the nuts-and-bolts stuff. As such, despite the ridiculous entanglements, which seem to have no way out for the characters, things end up in the most predictable and expected of fashions possible, even if it is without question the least plausible. Also, being a whimsical comedy, it is occasionally plagued by that terribly annoying 'bouncy, bouncy, ha, ha, ha, that's your cue, time to la-la-laugh' music. There are some really terrible cues that indicate to the audience, who would obviously be too thick to notice without it, that we are about to be led into a raucously humorous scene that is simply side-splittingly funny. Word to idiots: sometimes silence is golden, and the scenes would have been much funnier if you were to omit those stupid little cues which are as bad as some of the asides that punctuate every single Shakespeare comedy! For the record, Shakespeare's best comedies were his tragedies, as his comedies were as forced out as a well-trapped turd. While not as bad as that, Beautiful Lies has this issue to a certain extent, and it really is a shame that such a watchable and entertaining film should be let down by silly mistakes like this which seem to happen time and time again.

Certainly, Beautiful Lies has it's problems. It never quite emerges from the trappings of the film's genre, and thus it ensures the film is very predictable. Also, it is punctuated by that highly theatrical and stagey music that indicates certain moments where you must laugh, and maybe, just maybe, even shed a tear. These problems, when they emerge, are frightfully annoying. However, for the most part, this is a consistently entertaining film. You get three great performances from Tautou (our generation's Audrey Hepburn), Baye and Bouajila, some this year's best-written dialogue/comedic set-pieces, permeated by a constant fast, efficient and exciting pace by director Pierre Salvadori. While not being anything new, this is the kind of standard that we as audiences deserve to see on a more regular basis in a comedic film.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 7.3/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Amped (Human Centipede 2, here I come!)

Happy Birthday Dad!

2011-11-27T16:53:00.001-08:00

Woops, forgot to shout out my big pappy. You wouldn't be getting these reviews if it weren't for him, so depending how you stand, curse his name or praise the ground he stands on. Happy Birthday Dad!

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - I Saw The Devil

2011-11-27T13:27:00.001-08:00

Directed by: Kim Ji-woon

Produced by: Kim Hyung-woo

Jo Sung-won

Kim Jae-young

Kim Jung-hwa

Screenplay by: Park Hoon-jung

Starring: Lee Byung-hun

Choi Min-sik

Music by: Mowg

Cinematography by: Lee Mo-gae

Editing by: Nam Na-young

Studio: Showbox/Mediaplex

Distributed by: Showbox/Mediaplex (South Korea)

Magnet Releasing (United States)

Optimum Entertainment (United Kingdom)

Release date(s): August 12, 2010 (South Korea)

March 4, 2011 (United States)

April 29, 2011 (United Kingdom)

Running time: 140 minutes

Country: South Korea

Language: Korean

Budget: $6 million (reportedly)

Box office revenue: $12, 773, 990

Alright, as you can tell, I am now back in full force, churning out reviews at the rate that they really should be. As mentioned on a final note in my last review, I have now seen Beautiful Lies, the new French-language comedy starring Audrey Tautou, a review for which will follow this one. Also, I have since watched the suitably bonkers Drive Angry, so expect my opinions on that film soon. Finally, tomorrow I have penned in Tom Six's The Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence) for viewing. I will be watching that online tomorrow, because I am not paying the extortionate £13.99 prices that the UK's cut-version of the film is going for. I thought the first film was a good exploitation flick, so I hope that this will be as well. On this topic, I must say that the media publishing the BBFC's report on this film was a disgrace. The BBFC do a good job in policing films, but I would like to point out that Total Film, The Guardian, Metro and Digital Spy all published articles which revealed significant spoilers regarding the film. This was an absolute shambles, and the only mainstream press I have read which does the banning justice without spoiling the film is the BBC News' report, so kudos to them and shame on the rest. This is besides the point of this review, but keep your eyes posted on this blog!

The film up for review today, I Saw The Devil, ran into similar censorship issues in it's home country of South Korea. The Korea Media Rating Board objected to the film's content, and without cuts it would have received a 'Restricted' rating, preventing release on the theatrical and home video markets. This was unprecedented move, as director Kim Ji-woon's three previous films, A Tale Of Two Sisters, A Bittersweet Life (his best to date) and The Good, The Bad, The Weird were all major financial and critical successes. In his latest film, Lee Byung-hun stars as Soo-hyun, an intelligence agent who attempts to track down the murderer of his fiance, played by Choi Min-sik. That is all you really need to know, as the plot reveals itself as the film goes along.

Starting with the good of I Saw The Devil, the two lead performances must be brought up. Lee Byung-hun portrays wonderfully the sense of tragedy to his character and the single-minded determination he approaches his task with. He has this extraordinary stoicism that means every single gesture is dictated by some deep-rooted emotion. Also, as the central heart of the film, he manages to be charismatic and watchable without any of the pretension that some of his peers possess. On the other side of the coin, Choi Min-sik does (appropriately) the complete opposite. Always full of intensity onscreen, the volume of this role makes his part in Oldboy seem suitably low-key. Nevertheless, he is insanely fascinating with his portrayal of this thoroughly repulsive character. Touching upon just about every aspect of the emotional spectrum, Choi Min-sik is astonishing and delivers what is probably the best supporting performance by a male actor I have seen this year. Other praiseworthy aspects of the film include Lee Mo-gae's fantastic cinematography. Kim Ji-woon is a visual storyteller in every sense, and Mo-gae's work complements this. In a film of this nature, this is very important. Despite the fact that there are some horrible and repulsive things going on, it is filmed with such a sense of panache and flair that you never want to tear your eyes from the screen. Also, Park Hoon-jung's script has some good elements about. Structurally, it is really something, as the first act begins at the emotional high point that most other thrillers end. This ensures that throughout the film you are kept guessing, and even still you will be unprepared for the third act climax, which is about as intense a series of scenes in a film you will see all year. Not to wag the dog, it does smack you on the head with a hammer! Finally, in what I would think is his most difficult film, Kim Ji-woon proves once again his great skill as a director. He has a great range, able to bounce from genre to genre, but still maintaining his consistently good style. Furthermore, his humanist approach to his work (and his characters) ensures that despite instances of extreme violence, his film's are handled with great care and empathy towards the audience.

Needless to say, I did like I Saw The Devil. However, I do think that there are a few issues that deny the film the status of the upper echelon. For instance, the script, while having very strong first and third acts, does have occasionally get flabby in the second act. There were certain scenes that were way too long-winded and as a result ended up getting boring. Also, the nature of the conflict between Soo-hyun and Kyung-chul (Choi Min-sik's character) means that sometimes the action does get repetitive and you know where it is going. That said, the transition from second to third act is done so smoothly, it is easy to forget the weaknesses of the second act. Also, I feel that the film could have been cut by ten or fifteen minutes. This is not entirely the fault of the editor Nam Na-young, whose work has moments of brilliance throughout. Nor is the cutting necessitated by the film's violence. It is more due to some of the scenes of dialogue, which just seem to go on and on, coming across as too theatrical for the film's own good. I don't think it is important for all of the clutter in the film to remain, and it does feel as though this is an extended version with some deleted scenes to an already excellent film. As such, it does cause for lapses in interest in an otherwise fine film.

There is no doubt that I Saw The Devil has its issues. Overly long and occasionally problematic concerning the script, there is no doubt that with more vigilance in the editing room to thin the film out and erase it's repetition that this would be a masterpiece. Indeed, for all his talent, I still feel Kim Jee-woon has yet to make his masterpiece, and A Bittersweet Life is still as close as he's ever got to breaking through to the other side. However, his handled of this difficult film with difficult topic matter shows his directorial flair. Also, Lee Mo-gae's cinematography excels, placing emphasis on capturing the action in a stylistically innovative manner that looks gorgeous. It must be said that while Park Hoon-jung's second act is troublesome, the first and third acts of his script are masterfully written. The film's overall mise-en-scene, including production design, costumes and make up also add to the film's suitably dark atmosphere. Finally, you have two stellar performances, one from lead Lee Byung-hun and the other an extraordinary supporting turn from Choi Min-sik, ensuring that despite bothersome points, I Saw The Devil is nevertheless a great film that will provoke a reaction and stay with you for some time.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 8.3/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Solemn (not rushing myself and in a nice little zone)

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - The Rum Diary

2011-11-25T14:50:00.000-08:00

Directed by: Bruce Robinson

Produced by: Johnny Depp

Graham King

Christi Dembrowski

Anthony Rhulen

Robert Kravis

Screenplay by: Bruce Robinson

Based on: The Rum Diary by Hunter S. Thompson

Starring: Johnny Depp

Aaron Eckhart

Michael Rispoli

Amber Heard

Richard Jenkins

Giovanni Ribisi

Music by: Christopher Young

Cinematography by: Dariusz Wolski

Editing by: Carol Littleton

Studio(s): GK Films

Infinitum Nihil

Distributed by: FilmDistrict

Release date(s): October 28, 2011 (United States)

November 11, 2011 (United Kingdom)

Running time: 120 minutes

Country: United States

Language: English

Budget: $45 million

Box office revenue (as of publication): $19, 202, 772

Alright folks, as expected, me again (who else?)! So, I've finally got the dastardly essays for this semester in university done, now I'm going to get back into some serious reviewing (I seem to making a comeback every other week!). I have finally watched I Saw The Devil, the new Kim Ji-woon film, and I have copies of The Adjustment Bureau, Ages Of Heroes, The Way Back and a new addition in Stake Land to the DVD rack. Also, you can definitely expect a review for Breaking Dawn: Part 1, as it will be out for weeks, but I'm going to try and catch up on Immortals, TinTin and Tabloid, the new film by Errol Morris. On the internet horizon, I will try and get a properly subtitled version of Film Socialisme and The Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence). Finally, you can expect that I will get down to reviewing 13 Assassins, the new Takashi Miike film, and Nic Winding Refn's Drive at some point, so keep your eyes posted.

Anyway, post preamble, let's get down to digesting The Rum Diary. This film has a lot of interesting components going into it: Johnny Depp stars in an adaptation of the eponymous Hunter S. Thompson novel as Paul Kemp, a journalist who, getting disenfranchised with America under the Eisenhower administration, gets a job working for The San Juan Star in Puerto Rico. This is Depp's second involvement in an S. Thompson adaptation, after 1998's Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas. Also producing the film, he has also coaxed the great Bruce Robinson, writer-director of one of the greatest films ever made, Withnail and I, a film not unlike something unlike 'Gonzo' himself would have written. With all these elements in place, it would seem that a great adaptation of Hunter S. Thompson, starring the right actor and with the best writer-director for the job. However, The Rum Diary has gotten very mixed critical reception, and something that could have been a contender (a long shot, but a contender nevertheless) for the Oscars has already had its chances blown. Nevertheless, given the pedigree involved, I went in with an open heart and mind, wanting to enjoy it.

So, as mentioned, Depp is the perfect actor to play a Hunter S. Thompson surrogate, and he proves just that in his role as Paul Kemp. Although dominating the film, Depp is a good enough actor to know how to pull back and make his character slither about as a natural part of the scenery. He's clearly enjoying himself here, and it comes through onscreen. Also, as producer it is clear that his heart is in the right place, wanting to faithfully adapt his friend's novel. Bruce Robinson does a surprisingly good job of handling this project. After nineteen years, he shows no rust in his edgy and raw directorial style. Furthermore, his script captures the essence of Hunter S. Thompson: we go through all various scenarios, but there is a real serious undertone to the piece that makes it seem all the more whole. Also, some of the motley crew of actors, particularly Amber Heard, Richard Jenkins and Giovanni Ribisi (who looks absolutely filthy here) give good performances and help contribute the overall sense of the world Kemp is inhabiting. Finally, it is a pleasure to feel the passion which the participants of this project clearly have for the material, and The Rum Diary does always feel like something genuine.

From the glowing things I've said there you'd probably expect this to be one of the best of the year. I hate to say this, but The Rum Diary is by no means among the best films to come out this year. The primary problem(s) seem to be the decisions made in the pre-production process, particularly with who they have hired on the film. I'll admit that the film does look good, but I feel that in order to tell this story, it really needs to be downplayed. Dariusz Wolski is a very good cinematographer, but I think his work here makes the film look too crisp and clean, and adds a big layer of fat onto the film. This is especially problematic whenever you find that Kemp's 'squalor' looks like somewhere I'd want to live, as opposed to the filthy, scum-infested mess it's meant to be. Also, despite some of the shenanigans going on, I think it was really unnecessary to cut some of these sequences as though it's a Bourne movie. It takes away from legitimately buying the film, and makes it come across a carbon copy of things we have seen before. This is horrible I know, but I felt them really trying to be like The Hangover and cater to a mainstream audience. Furthermore, Christopher Young's score is shockingly murder-by-numbers, especially considering his work on Hellraiser is highly unconventional. It is highly disappointing that these elements of contrivance enter (and permeate) the film and make a potentially great film come across as forgettable.

The Rum Diary is definitely a good film. Johnny Deep is as always a strong lead, and the casting for a number of the actors, specifically Amber Heard, Giovanni Ribisi and Richard Jenkins is spot on. Also, in Bruce Robinson you have the right guy in there to adapt Hunter S. Thompson and bring it to life onscreen. However, unfortunately those hired for the film's technical aspects, talented as they are, do not fit with the project. While being a good movie, my prevailing feeling with The Rum Diary is that this is a watered-down, mainstream attempt to do Hunter S. Thompson. A shame, really...

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 6.2/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Content (to sit in)

P.S. REVIEW UPDATE - Got a copy of Beautiful Lies, the new comedy starring Audrey Tautou on my desk for review

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Suck

2011-11-21T15:17:00.000-08:00

(Note: this is the US poster, and is marketed completely different to the UK DVD cover, which I couldn't find on Google, hence the differences in cast credits)

Directed by: Rob Stefaniuk

Produced by: Robin Crumley

Jeff Rogers

Victoria Hirst

Screenplay by: Rob Stefaniuk

Starring: Rob Stefaniuk

Jessica Pare

Iggy Pop

Alice Cooper

Malcolm McDowell

Dave Foley

Moby

Henry Rollins

Paul Anthony

Mike Lobel

Chris Ratz

Dmitri Coats

Cinematography by: D. Gregor Hagey

Editing by: Michele Conroy

Distributed by: Capri Films

Release date(s): September 11, 2009 (Canada)

April 16, 2010 (United States premiere, RiverRun International Film Festival)

October 11, 2010 (United Kingdom DVD Premiere)

Running time: 87 minutes

Country: Canada

Language: English

Budget: $3.5 million

Box office revenue: (Unavailable)

Ahoy there matey! 'Tis I, The Thin White Dude! Alright, I'll get rid of the Pirate gimmick, I've had a wild couple of days. On a special note (that makes me sound disabled, right?), I was at the Queens Film Theatre on Saturday as part of Cinemagic's Mark Kermode Film Night. The good Dr. was promoting his new book, The Good The Bad And The Multiplex, and presenting The Buddy Holly Story, a movie that I enjoyed and am looking forward to watching again. However, highlight of the night for me was winning a prize giveaway DVD copy of the film on the basis of Mark selecting my citing Neds as a movie "of savage grace," a comment which I used in my review of the film, as audience comment of the night. For those of you who don't know, Kermode is the film critic whose work I admire the most, so for him to compliment me in that manner means a lot, so I would like to shout out a big thank you to the good man himself. My second shout-out is to the gang at Spill.com, whose reviews I have been eating up like a box of Pringles! Finally, the last shout-out goes to Charlie Chaplin, who has made writing Film Studies essays such a privilege: I treasure every moment I get to watch one of his films.

So, yes, I'm in a pretty good mood. Also, I've had about a week to evaluate this film over in my head, so I know where I am going with this one. Suck is a film that was released in the United States in 2009, but I picked my copy up in HMV for £3 a couple of weeks ago. The DVD case reads the year 2011, even though the ' UK DVD Premiere' was in October 2010. Personally, I've never seen a copy before, and the 2011 gives me enough justification to review it. So, Suck is billed as a 'rock-'n-roll vampire comedy,' and stars rock legends Alice Cooper, Iggy Pop, Henry Rollins and Moby. It follows failing band The Winners, fronted by Joey Winner (the film's writer-director Rob Stefaniuk), who is hungry for fame. Despite things taking a turn for the better for the band, Joey is irritated that the band's bassist Jennifer (Jessica Pare) is getting all the attention, due to having been turned into a vampire. However, hot on their tail on the road is Eddie Van Helsig (the great Malcolm McDowell), a vampire hunter who is afraid of the dark.

To start off with the good, it must first be mentioned that the "rock royalty" the DVD markets with top billing, Cooper, Pop, Rollins and Moby, all star in very small bit-parts, so these roles aren't as substantial as we would be lead to believe. Nevertheless, they each play the parts well. Cooper doesn't do much, but creates a convincingly mysterious presence. Nobody does crazy quite like Iggy Pop, and Henry Rollins is highly entertaining in his insults towards the film's main band, The Winners. Most surprising is the normally modest Moby, who plays the complete opposite of himself, a self-indulgent asshole who seems have a fetish towards meat. In larger roles, Chris Ratz does a good job playing Hugo, the film's equivalent of a Renfield character. Also, Dave Foley is pretty funny in this film as The Winners' manager, a manager who is almost as bad as Stephen Merchant's Agent in Extras. As ever though, it is the great Malcolm McDowell who flourishes as Eddie Van Helsig. His part is a real scene-stealer, and provides the film's best laughs. Furthermore, he isn't going in there shouting "Look at me, I'm Malcolm McDowell." He is wise and intelligent enough an actor to know when to blend into the background, something that he does very well when necessary. Also worthy of mention is Rob Stefaniuk's job as a director. Considering when you think about how bad the movie could have turned out, it is a testament to his control and efficiency that he was able to make something watchable out of this film. There are also some wise decisions to work around the film's limited budget. Shooting most of the travelling scenes in claymation and the editing by Michele Conroy ensure that we don't get drawn into laborious scenes of the band on the road. It also means that the film has a relatively consistent pace and doesn't fall in low troughs for certain sections. At eighty-seven minutes, the film is as long as it needs to be. Finally, no one can deny that some of the soundtrack, featuring Cooper, The Stooges, David Bowie and The Velvet Underground, is so timeless and listenable that you can't help but feel good, especially with the film's inclusion (and use) of The Stooges' TV Eye.

As much of a novelty as Suck is, it is also highly problematic and is by no means the cult movie it aims to be. My friend and fellow film critic Daniel Kelly always makes a good point when he gets pissed off about film's that try to be deliberately 'grindhouse' (look at Tarantino's Death Proof by itself and it falls flat on it's face), and the case is the same with those try too hard to be 'cult.' If you have talent like those that Stefaniuk got into the film, good as they were, they shouldn't just pop up as window dressing. This is not the only problem with the film's script. Structurally, it is so transparent that you can see everything coming multiple scenes before they happen. For a such a 'cult' horror-comedy, it is way too predictable. Having the right balance between horror and comedy can be hard to do, but Stefaniuk's script doesn't succeed in either department. The dialogue is nowhere near as funny as it ought to be, and the term 'horror' only seems to relate to the fact that vampires are involved in the films. Furthermore, the vampire make-up for all of the actors bar one (not unveiling for spoiler reasons) is awful. I know that in the case of Jessica Pare this might be deliberate, but Dmitri Coats and everyone else in the film look embarrassingly stupid. Finally, and I will count this as a fault for I don't interpret this as a satire, The Winners band themselves suck. You are meant to get behind the underdogs, and as they grow in success their songs 'improve,' but of course they don't really, they're still terrible. I know that music taste is subjective, but man, when you have Iggy and Alice Cooper on your soundtrack (and not even particularly good Along Came A Spider Alice Cooper), these guys' rubbish performances only seems all the worse. Off the stage, they do not fare well either. I know Stefaniuk's character is meant to be a dick, but Moby was more entertaining as a dick in twenty times less screen time. Also, Jessica Pare's acting severely lacks the charisma that her character requires, while Paul Anthony and Mike Lobel came across as nothing more than spare tyres as The Winners' guitarist and drummer respectively.

Look, to call a movie Suck is always risky business, as it leaves you wide open to have some critics go for predictable 'review-in-a-nutshell' pun based off the title. On the other hand, I've seen 'xoxMARSVAxox' on YouTube give the old "The movie was totally different from its title! IT ROCKS! \m/" Regardless of these polar opposites (the latter comment makes me want to cane the user's typing fingers for the horrible grammar. Yes, I'm a grammar bitch, bitch!), Suck is neither. It has its pros in decent performances (excluding The Winners and Dmitri Coats), decent editing, decent soundtrack and decent direction. However, it is nothing more than a decent movie, as The Winners, our protagonists, 'suck' (I'm already a hypocrite, pulling out the title references), both as actors and performers, the script is a mess, the makeup is bad and it tries way too hard to be a cult film. If you want to see a cult horror-comedy, go watch Repo! The Genetic Opera. Furthermore, the music is awesome! Suck is not a bad film, nor a good film, just average.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 5.0/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Busy (I'll be glad to be rid of these Uni essays and get back to some hardcore reviewing)

P.S. To 'xoxMARSVAxox:' nothing personal, I decided to go with you as my reference, and I don't care about your grammatical 'errors.' No one has a monopoly on grammar, so feel free to right what you will, regardless of my opinion and yours differing

P.P.S. My next two reviews will be for The Rum Diary and (finally) I Saw The Devil, so keep those eyes posted

P.P.P.S. My researching for this film's poster has reminded me of a recent error: Barbarossa: Siege Lord is not the first '0' rating I have given out a few years. Last year, I gave one to my worst film of the year, Vampires Suck. The less said, the better, I'm still trying to recover from post-traumatic flashbacks!

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - 5 Days Of War

2011-11-17T13:29:00.000-08:00

Directed by: Renny Harlin

Produced by: Renny Harlin

George Lascu

Mirza Davitaia

Koba Nakopia

Screenplay by: Mikko Alanne

David Battle

Starring: Rupert Friend

Emmanuelle Chirqui

Richard Coyle

Andy Garcia

Johnathon Schaech

Rade Serbedzija

Antje Traue

Val Kilmer

Dean Cain

Heather Graham

Music by: Trevor Rabin

Cinematography by: Checco Varese

Editing by: Brian Berdan

Studio: RexMedia

Distributed by: Anchor Bay Entertainment (United States)

Release date(s): June 5, 2011 (Georgia)

June 9, 2011 (United Kingdom)

August 19, 2011 (United States)

Running time: 109 minutes

Country: United States

Language: English

Georgian

Russian

Budget: $12 million

Box office revenue: $17, 479

Allo allo, I've been on an absence again due to essays, but I can guarantee a number of reviews coming in. Along with this movie, I've been able to see Suck, the rock-and-roll vampire comedy with Alice Cooper, Iggy Pop and Henry Rollins, and will be going to the cinema tomorrow to see either Immortals or The Rum Diary (probably the latter). Also, I've got copies now (to join the plethora of those awaiting review) of Age Of Heroes and The Way Back. I've been bogged down with Late Medieval Literature and Charlie Chaplin films of late, neither of which are a bad thing, but I'll be glad of the brief respite before I get back into them in a few days. By Wednesday next, my essays'll be out of the way, and reviews will resume as normal, so keep your eyes posted!

Ok, today's film here is 5 Days Of War. I bought this film on the basis of it being a new Renny Harlin movie, and so I knew that as a review it would provoke some interesting arguments. Now, I believe that Harlin is a very underrated filmmaker, for while he doesn't have the critical reception of a Christopher Nolan, he has in Die Hard 2 and Deep Blue Sea two good films under his belt, and in the case Cliffhanger, one great film. Harlin has proved to me that there is enough talent there to be deserving of objective critical analysis. 5 Days Of War follows Thomas Anders (Rupert Friend), an American reporter who along with his cameraman Sebastian Ganz (Richard Coyle) and a number of others reporters, including cast members Antje Traue and Val Kilmer, who get caught in the crossfire of the 2008 South Ossetia War between Russia and Georgia.

To start off with what is good about the film, I must say that Renny Harlin directs this movie with the efficiency and flair that is typical of his work. Although he has certainly made some rubbish films in the past, it is generally the case that even their individual parts are bad, Harlin handles them with care. Also, Andy Garcia convincingly plays Mikheil Saakashvili, the President of Georgia. At first, I couldn't help but think "what the hell are they doing?", but for all the limited screen time he has, Garcia does a good job and has you believe that he is that character. Also, there is an affecting performance by Rade Serbedzija. Despite his character being written in a nuts-and-bolts fashion, he excels in his performance as the weary, 'seen it all' Col. Demidov. It is the kind of performance that is befitting of the film, especially considering the direction that it wishes to take, blending right in with the film's serious tone. He is definitely the most intriguing part of the entire picture. As expected with a Harlin movie, there is really good production design, and this being coupled with some well-selected locations give the film a believable mise-en-scene. 5 Days Of War is at its best when Harlin has cinematographer Checco Varese placed far away from the action, using wide and helicopter shots to capture the action taking place. Finally, there are a number of scenes at one point in the film involving a chess game, where the action slows down and we get a scene of dialogue that is surprisingly strong, affecting and from the way 5 Days Of War feels overall, seems to belong in a different film.

While there are certainly worthy elements to 5 Days Of War, it is a seriously problematic film. For starters, and I'm not going to be rude because I'm worried that if he knocked out Tom Cruise he wouldn't think twice about kicking my head in, but if you are going to introduce Val Kilmer in a film, these days it would be preferable not to do so via webcam in a bathtub. Just saying. Next on the checklist of wrongdoings is the cinematography. Now, I praised it earlier on, but my problem is that there are too many times that they decide to shoot on Digital Video. I have no particular problem with DV as a format, but it is just being used so much, and in this case so badly, that it is no longer stylistic (or even realistic!), and sometimes becomes the dullard's format in terms of shooting a picture. Also, as one and one go together to make two, the editing by Brian Berden also fails. The switching about from all of these different formats, and the extreme variation in shot lengths, the type of sound in a scene etc etc all create a film that is easily as hyperreal as a postmodern documentary like Exit Through The Gift Shop. Saying that, while Exit Through The Gift Shop clearly nods towards whether or not you should buy it as legitimate, 5 Days Of War is unfortunately a very serious film that's fundamental hyperreality ensures that you don't buy any of it whatsoever. This is a big problem that makes the film's already weak script come across even worse. Unlike Harlin's other pictures, this is a dead serious, 'horrors of war' war film, and attempts to send out a serious message as opposed to it being a straight-up action picture. As such, we have a lot of scenes of people talking rather poignantly about how they lost their prize pigs (not literally, I am taking the piss!) and woe is me. I have no problem with 'horrors of war' pictures, I consider Come And See one of the greatest films ever made, but this is done in such a propagandist manner. The dialogue is shoddy, as if the actors, none of whom bar Garcia and Serbedzija give a good performance, have enough to contend with already having to play poorly realised characters. Also, there is no real sense of an objective argument, with 'glorious Georgia' being portrayed as all good and peace-loving, while the Russians are evil barbarians. It's like the portrayal of Russians in the 1980s, only then there was a context (the Cold War) behind these stereotypes and that films like Rambo: First Blood Part II were not meant to be taken as serious depictions of war. Finally, although I think Harlin handles the job with efficiency, this contains many of his trademarks, most of which end up contradicting the 'horrors of war' angle the film takes and leave me with the opinion that he probably wasn't the right director to work on this project.

While Renny Harlin does make a sincere effort to do his best with this picture, which contains a good performance by Andy Garcia and a great one from Rade Serbedzija, some decent cinematography, a strongly-established mise-en-scene and a great series of scenes in the mid-way point of the film that nearly convinced me the movie was better than it was, 5 Days Of War is ultimately a botched failure of a film. Bar Garcia, there is not a good performance to be seen, due in part to a bad script that fails in its structure, its characterisations and the dialogue that has been written for the characters. Also, the cinematography and editing do not work well together and cause the film to lack the consistency it dearly needs, no thanks to the regular switching of formats. This, along with the film's propagandist tendencies ensure that 5 Days Of War is a very flawed 'horrors of war' film that does not depict its topic appropriately and comes across as a hyperreal mess that you can never really take seriously.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 3.2/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Anxious (to get this done: I'm looking forward to beer and The Wicker Man! Original, of course)

P.S. There are some real Team America/Tropic Thunder moments in here that you'd think should never be seen again outside a comedic context

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - In Time

2011-11-08T13:23:00.001-08:00

Directed by: Andrew Niccol

Produced by: Marc Abraham

Amy Israel

Kristel Laiblin

Eric Newman

Screenplay by: Andrew Niccol

Starring: Justin Timberlake

Amanda Seyfried

Cillian Murphy

Olivia Wilde

Alex Pettyfer

Vincent Kartheiser

Johnny Galecki

Music by: Craig Armstrong

Cinematography by: Roger Deakins

Editing by: Zach Staenberg

Studio(s): Regency Enterprises

New Regency

Strike Entertainment

Distributed by: 20th Century Fox

Release date(s): October 28, 2011 (United States)

November 1, 2011 (United Kingdom)

Running time: 115 minutes

Country: United States

Language: English

Budget: $40 million

Box office revenue (as of publication): $62, 153, 268

For a change, I've actually kept good on my promise to get active and do more reviews. I can also promise you that this year I will have my 5th annual best and worst of the year on time before the Oscars, as I am already prepping it up. As such, I reckon that my post-Oscars break that I take every year will only last to April (at the latest), unlike the usual break 'til June. So, to those of you who have followed my rants and raves through the thick and often thin, I thank you very much.

Okay, forgetting my attempts to cheaply appeal to my readership, here is the review for the new science-fiction thriller In Time. Whether you know it or not, I'll say it again, I am a big science-fiction fan, and with this being directed by Andrew Niccol, who wrote The Truman Show and directed Gattaca, I was looking forward to seeing it. Also, it stars Justin Timberlake (who I am now very jealous of: he's already had his ex Cameron Diaz and Mila Kunis star 'alongside' him this year), Amanda Seyfried and Cillian Murphy. Quick overview? In the year 2161, humans have been genetically altered to stop ageing once they reach twenty-five. As such, 'time' has replaced money as currency, and people gain more time through their jobs to stop themselves from 'timing out'/dying. Will Salas (Timberlake) saves the life of 105-year-old Henry Hamilton (Matt Bomer), who turns out to be disillusioned with the concept of immortality, and transfers his years to Salas. However, his suicide is seen by the authorities as murder, and Timekeeper Raymond Leon (Cillian Murphy) is on Salas' case in order to repossess the 'stolen' time.

To start off with what I like about the film, I must go with the central concept. Andrew Niccol constructs a science-fiction world that we can believe in as a potential reality. He plots out every little aspect, with details such as a minute being paid to use a pay-phone. Also, it speaks highly of a Hollywood film to take such a left-wing approach. We are so used to being subjected to middle-America neo-capitalism that we end up becoming numb to those film's politics. As such, Niccol's establishment of a class system, where people live in certain 'Time Zone's', and the police of the film ensuring that minutes are not stolen, though it is explicitly suggested that the rich, who are gambling in casino's with their many millennia, are all crooks anyway. Being a left-wing film does not buy it brownie points, but it certainly ensures that we at least are seeing something refreshing. Also integral to the establishment of the film's world is the production design and costumes. Going for the retro-futurist look was wise, for this is both a dystopian world, but one that easily recognisable as our own and more plausible than most science-fiction, which seem to have the idea that the world will be have reached a complete catastrophic point within ten years. Furthermore, this combination of things recognisable and not give the film a strong sense of visual style. This style is complimented by the cinematography of Roger Deakins. One of our great living cinematographers, Deakins handles with prowess his first work shot in digital, and ensures that we are engaged by the look of the film. Finally, there is perfectly serviceable work from the actors, Timberlake and Seyfried doing a good job in the main parts, while Cillian Murphy really steals the show as the veteran timekeeper Raymond Leon. Just looking at Murphy's facial expression's, despite his youth, gives the impression of a world-weary man in his fifties, and his terrific enunciation completes the picture, and one can't help but be reminded of Morgan Freeman in Se7en, although with a bit more doggedness and rule-bending when it comes to the job.

As I'm sure you can tell, unlike the rather unfair critical reception In Time has been receiving, I liked the film. However, it is doubtless that the film has its fair share of problems, and although I will get into detail, one word comes to mind when I think of the film's issues: compromised. The central concept, world and thematic content we are presented with showed me that this had the potential to be as savage a satire on consumerism and capitalism as RoboCop. However, unlike Paul Verhoeven's classic, which stands as one of the greatest films ever and is anything but compromised, In Time feels like a dog castrated of its dignity. Thus, while we have the interesting thematic content, we have a lot of Timberlake running and having his shirt off. We also have the obligatory car chase scene, the running on rooftops scene etc etc. All of this stuff seems to have been thrown in for the sake of pleasing the moneymen who the very film is slagging off. Look, if you are going to attempt to 'crash the system,' do it properly and without compromise. Artistic sacrifices have been made here by Niccol, and I find it all to be very disappointing. Also, in establishing the concept, Niccol does occasionally go into overkill. There really is no need for the unfathomable amount of puns and little nods towards time in the dialogue. These references make the film come across as contrived and forced. Also, the script, while containing obviously the concept and world that I like, is propagandist in manner, with some badly constructed character arcs that we have seen done a thousand times before, and usually better. Dialogue too fares no better, and structurally the whole film goes everywhere you expect to by the half way stage. The only part you can't guess ahead is the rather deflating ending, which seems to have come to life as a bookend to something that Niccol couldn't be bothered finishing. Finally, there is a car crash in the film that looks like something really terrible you would see off of an Asylum production for the SciFi channel.

There is much to admire with In Time. It contains a well-developed and believable world, helped to no end by the production design, costumes and cinematography by Roger Deakins. Furthermore, the leftist position that the film takes is daring for a studio film starring Justin Timberlake, Amanda Seyfried and Cillian Murphy, all of whom are good (particularly Murphy) in their roles. However, In Time is also a tragedy, for while being a good film, it is also highly compromised. Much of the things that keep the plot in motion just seem to be there for the sake of obligation, as though a film must have so many different checks on a list of things a should have. Niccol has disappointingly made a lot of artistic sacrifices, injected the film with a propagandist nature that comes across as forced and not satirical. The film's ending is also rather deflating, which is my general feeling when it comes to the film: it gets gradually worse as it goes along. I would normally recommend the film as it is good, except that it is so compromised that I can only really recommend that you go see RoboCop (again, if you have seen it already).

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 6.1/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Ready to relax (been busy like a motherfucker!)

P.S. Dear Justin Timberlake, please spread the love. You've dry-humped your ex Cameron Diaz (Bad Teacher), had a casual sex relationship with Mila Kunis (Friends With Benefits) and had Amanda Seyfried (In Time) go Stockholm on her rich daddy, and all in one year! I am serious when I say you are good in these films by the way, even if I am jealous, you lucky bastard!

Regards, The Thin White Dude

P.P.S. Dear Harlan Ellison, please shut up! I like your stuff man, but Jesus, enough is enough with the fucking lawsuits! Other people are allowed to have ideas: just because they share some similarities to your own doesn't mean they were stolen!

The Thin White Dude's Movie Of The Month: October 2011 - Tyrannosaur

2011-11-07T17:47:00.000-08:00

Paddy Considine proves himself a formidable force as the writer-director of this great film. Starring Peter Mullan, who is on a career high following his writer-director work on Neds, Tyrannosaur also boast great, naturalistic performances from Olivia Colman and Eddie Marsan. Also, there is some great cinematography from Erik Wilson and excellent sound design that wholly integrates the film's audience in its setting, one that is at once both of a cinema verite mould and a dystopian nightmare. It might not make for pleasant viewing, but Tyrannosaur is a gripping and essential film to be seen.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 8.5/10

Runner-Up: Real Steel - A surprisingly effective action film on both the dramatic and visual side of things

Avoid Life The Plague: Barbarossa: Siege Lord - A repugnantly filthy and loathsome auteur 'masterpiece' from Renzo Martinelli

Second-Most Deadly Disease: Johnny English Reborn - Rowan Atkinson picks up a nice pay cheque in this thoroughly dull comedy

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Never Let Me Go

2011-11-07T13:16:00.000-08:00

Directed by: Mark Romanek

Produced by: Mark Romanek

Alex Garland

Andrew Macdonald

Allon Reich

Screenplay by: Alex Garland

Based on: Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro

Narrated by: Carey Mulligan

Starring: Carey Mulligan

Andrew Garfield

Keira Knightley

Music by: Rachel Portman

Cinematography by: Adam Kimmel

Editing by: Barney Pilling

Studio(s): DNA Films

Film4

Distributed by: Fox Searchlight Pictures

Release date(s): September 3, 2010 (Telluride Film Festival)

September 15, 2010 (United States; limited release)

February 11, 2011 (United Kingdom)

Running time: 103 minutes

Country(s): United Kingdom

United States

Language: English

Budget: $15 million

Box office revenue: $9, 455, 232

Hoy hoy hoy, this is the last post for a film that I reviewed in the month of October. As ever, it will be followed by a review of the month of October, which should give those of you who have missed some of the reviews a short distillation on what to watch and what not to. On another movie related topic, instead of going to see some of the crap movies I mention, watch some Charlie Chaplin. I have recently become very fond of his work due to bogging myself into piles of his movies for my Film Studies essay: it always helps to be fond of what you are studying, and Chaplin's Little Tramp is a highly endearing character that everyone will warm to.

So, todays (someone give me advice on the grammar there) film for assessment is Never Let Me Go. Adapted by Alex Garland, a novelist and screenwriter who I like very much, from the Kazuo Ishiguro novel, it stars Carey Mulligan, Andrew Garfield and Keira Knightley as three young people who grew up in a boarding school called Hailsham with their lives forever intertwined. That's as far as I am going: I won't spoil the plot as there as some interesting details to be sought from this film. It was directed by Mark Romanek, who is one of the foremost music-video directors, working with artists such as Nine Inch Nails, Johnny Cash, Jay-Z and Michael Jackson. However, it is for his superb 2002 thriller One Hour Photo, which stars Robin Williams in what I believe to be his finest performance. It is a stunning film that truly deserves a wider audience, and as such I was really looking forward to seeing this, Romanek's first feature in nine years after having dropped out from the 2010 Wolfman remake that went to be helmed by Joe Johnston.

The main thing that deserves praise about Never Let Me Go are the central three performances. Carey Mulligan carries the weight of this film on her shoulders in a terrific lead role, proving herself more than adept at playing this part. Being the centre of this film is a task which Mulligan pulls off with ease. She shows off all of the different sides of her character without being too flash or showy. This is a great display of subtlety, and you never once buy Kathy H. as anything but a real, 'in the flesh' human being: Mulligan has given us one of the year's finest examples of acting. Also good in the film are Andrew Garfield, Charlotte Rampling and particularly Keira Knightley, all of whom deliver performances that are above the level of the material on the written page, more of which later. It is worth mentioning the score by Rachel Portman, for while this is of the style of film score that I normally despise (hence my Emotional Heartstring Orchestra term for this), I thought for this project it was appropriate and really added to the resonance of the film. Also, as a director, as seen from his music videos and One Hour Photo, Romanek is both a visual stylist and visual storyteller, knowing how to make something look good while telling the plot in a cinematic manner. He is a master of the visual medium, and it is clear from the approach cinematographer Adam Kimmel takes that this was his intent throughout production. As a film that is a bit of a concept piece, the restraint that Romanek shows is admirable. This could really have went off the rails, but Romanek grounds it with a certain sense of reality that takes away from the film's occasional sense of contrivance. Finally, although I am about to get stuck in, I like the way Alex Garland reveals some of the film's 'concept'/'plot points:' they are revealed in a way that is true to life, as opposed to an overly dramatic M. Night Shyamalan manner (at least his newer stuff): it is one of the film's stronger points, and enables the audience to buy this as something legitimate.

Now, as you can tell already, I did like the film, and frankly I really want to like the film more, but there are issues that are highly problematic with Never Let Me Go. The first and foremost problem comes from Alex Garland's script. Garland is a writer who's work I normally enjoy (and am looking forward to his Judge Dredd adaptation), but despite this not being a bad script, it's also not a good script. I was really troubled because despite having never read the book, never read the script and never seen the film, I could guess everything that was going to happen. The way he reveals the 'concept' is interesting and subtle, but it felt so contrived and outside of reality that I found it very hard to attach to these characters. Speaking of which, and I know these are supporting roles, the character's of Tommy D. (Andrew Garfield) and Ruth (Keira Knightley) are presented in such a two-dimensional manner that the actor's struggle to present themselves legitimately as naturalistic. My final problem comes with the artistic decision regarding the narration. There is some beautiful dialogue, and I could listen to Carey Mulligan's voice all day, but if you are going to have narration, have it be consistent throughout. When you have whole sections of the film dominated by Mulligan's monologues, only for there to points where the gaps in narration last approximately half-an-hour, you feel like they are saying "this is the part that is integral to the story, because we don't require the narration to tell you how they feel." This lack of consistency highlights both the film's stronger and weaker points.

While having some serious issues with its script and some of the artistic decisions made while making the filming, most notably the lack of consistency in the narration, Never Let Me Go is a good film that is worth your time. It has a terrific performance from Carey Mulligan, with good backup from Andrew Garfield, Keira Knightley and Charlotte Rampling. Also, there is a good score from Rachel Portman and you will get to see a film by Mark Romanek, someone who knows how to make inject something with a strong balance between style and substance.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 6.5/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Satisfied (at the amount of work I'm getting done!)

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Life In A Day

2011-11-06T10:39:00.000-08:00

Directed by: Kevin McDonald

The YouTube Community

Produced by: Ridley Scott

Tony Scott

Music by: Harry Gregson-Williams

Matthew Herbert

Editing by: Joe Walker

Studio(s): Scott Free Productions

YouTube, Inc.

LG Corp

Distributed by: National Geographic Films

Release date(s): January 27, 2011 (United States)

June 17, 2011 (United Kingdom)

Running time: 95 minutes

Country: United States

Alright gang, I am writing this review before that of Never Let Me Go, so that will be hopefully explanation enough for the occasional confusion, as I'm sure you can see that this has been posted after that and my review of the month. Nevertheless, my seeing this film has decided to get ahead of myself and have ready to post. I have a busy enough month, as The Adjustment Bureau and I Saw The Devil are on the DVD stack, which will soon be joined by Age Of Heroes and Five Days Of War. Also, I can guarantee three trips to the cinema this week, so keep your eyes posted! On an unrelated note, do yourself a favour and get The Knife's Silent Shout album: it wipes the floor with most electro/house music that's coming out today!

Today's review is brought to you courtesy of that wonderful website that is www.topdocumentaryfilms.com. This site is like discovering a treasure chest for the documentary fiend, and I'd recommend getting on the site, as you'll definitely find something to watch. Anyway, Life In A Day is an interesting case, for it comprises entirely of clips sent in to YouTube on the day July 24th, 2010. The film was a hit at the Sundance Film Festival, and purchased by the National Geographic Channel, so, in an innovative case of marketing, the film has been available to see on the big screen, on television and for free on YouTube.

To start off with what is good, I must highlight Joe Walker's editing. Having over four thousand hours of footage to cull into a ninety-minute feature film is no easy task, but Walker seems to have succeeded in doing so without diluting away the purity of Life In A Day's central concept. Also, his work here ensures that Life In A Day is a postmodern film that is representative of our times. However, Walker's work would not have been as good if he did not have such strong material to sift through. Despite being 'amateur' cinematographers, the 'YouTube Community' have done an excellent job of being both true to life and representing a certain hyperreality that is prevalent in our society. Some of the things that I saw and these people told me were among the most emotionally powerful scenes I have seen all year, and it is the simplicity of the way they are shot that ensures they are anything but mundane. In many ways, the film resembles Koyaanisqatsi, the wonderful 1982 documentary by Godfrey Reggio. Director Andrew Macdonald displays a real sense of control over the project. This is the kind of thing that really could have got out of hand, but thankfully Macdonald has the sense to hold back and show some restraint. Finally, as music was so important to Koyaanisqatsi, it is key to the watchability of Life In A Day. It's great to see that in collaboration with Matthew Herbert, who makes some great contributions, that Harry Gregson-Williams has delivered a score that is on the level of his work in Hideo Kojima's Metal Gear Solid video-game series. This score has a great mix between orchestral compositions and experimental work, Gregson-Williams and Herbert bouncing off one another to create a strong amalgam piece of music.

Life In A Day is a great film that is certainly of importance and one of the best of the year, but it is not without its criticisms. For starters, I think that there are pacing problems. At less than ninety-five minutes, the film barely leaves room to breath and feels exhaustive to watch. The same problems of the postmodern documentary can be seen Catfish and Exit Through The Gift Shop, the viewer just being bombarded with a sheer mass of information. Also, an argument could be made that with this much information, is a project as vast as this truly representative of, well, 'life in a day.' Also, despite some powerful scenes, I personally felt that it did not tell me anything that most people don't know already, and the film me led down a traditional route that didn't expose me to many new ideas.

Nevertheless, although not up to Koyaanisqatsi's level, Life On A Day certainly deserves to be held in similar regard. It is a remarkable achievement for the documentary medium, the co-directing 'YouTube Community' proving that their simple, pure stories can easily be as powerful as one wrote by a seasoned screenwriter. Joe Walker has done a terrific job editing this down to its bare essentials (frankly, if it was any longer, it would be a very flabby film), and Andrew Macdonald reigns in something that really could have got out of control. Finally, the great score by Matthew Herbert and Harry Gregson-Williams adds an additional layer of strength to this great film that I feel right now to be the best documentary of the year.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 8.4/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Tired (been juggling a review for this and In Time at once, as you'll see with the quick posting)

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Real Steel

2011-11-01T15:21:00.000-07:00

Directed by: Shawn Levy

Produced by: Shawn Levy

Susan Montford

Don Murphy

Screenplay by: John Gatins

Story by: Dan Gilroy

Jeremy Leven

Based on: Steel by Richard Matheson

Starring: Hugh Jackman

Dakota Goyo

Evangeline Lilly

Anthony Mackie

Kevin Durand

Hope Davis

James Rebhorn

Music by: Danny Elfman

Cinematography by: Mauro Fiore

Editing by: Dean Zimmerman

Studio(s): DreamWorks Pictures

Reliance Entertainment

21 Laps Entertainment

ImageMovers

Distributed by: Touchstone Pictures

Release date(s): October 6, 2011 (Australia)

October 7, 2011 (United States & Canada)

October 14, 2011 (United Kingdom)

Running time: 127 minutes

Country: United States

Language: English

Budget: $110 million

Box office revenue (as of publication): $182, 322, 602

Another month is finished! We are now on to November, but my reviews for this film and Never Let Me Go will be included as reviews for October and will be followed by my review of the month. Hope you all enjoyed your Halloween, I know I certainly did, at least, that's what my heart tells me when my poor swollen brain cries "Was it worth it? How could you do this to me?" Also, with my room trashed, it brought with it one of those little hangover mysteries that are actually quite fun, trying to find my watch, phone, dentures etc. On the movie front, next week is my reading week at university, so not only will I be doing a good bit of work, I'll be getting at least three movies in at the cinema. Concluding the preamble, I can guarantee reviews for We Need To Talk About Kevin, I Saw The Devil and The Adjustment Bureau in the coming month.

The film for review today is Real Steel. Now, I saw the trailer for this attached to another film, and I couldn't help but thinking "this is going to be shit." I love Hugh Jackman, but considering my relationship with movies about robots hitting each other, I was getting wholeheartedly negative vibes about this film. Set in 2020, robots have replaced humans in the boxing world, and Charlie Kenton (Hugh Jackman) is an ex-boxer who owns one that helps pay his wages. On the run from a promoter due to money issues, he finds out from social services that his ex-girlfriend and mother to his eleven-year-old son Max (Dakota Goyo) has died. Charlie ends up having to take care of Max for three months, but not without brokering a deal with Max's uncle and future guardian for $100,000. With this money, Charlie intends to buy and revamp a robot to fight, with the help of friend Bailey Tallet (Evangeline Lilly). Every bit of detail in that plot had me thinking that the screenwriters are just trying to write a 'story' around the movie adaptation of the Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots board game, so I wasn't exactly looking forward to the film. Speaking of board games, what the fuck are all these filmmakers doing trying to turn board games into movies? Is the food they're eating too stale, because the shit coming out of their mouths at these production meetings is so unoriginal and fruitless you'd think they'd been eating cardboard! (Look at the Battleship trailer: it's terrifying!)

Surprisingly, despite the film's trailer, there was a lot that I liked about Real Steel. There is some terrific onscreen chemistry between Hugh Jackman and Dakota Goyo. The two nail the estranged father-son relationship, which makes their bonding sessions and squabbles all the more touching and humorous. Importantly, they avoid the potential pitfalls of their respective characters, as they are both written in a cliched, stereotypical manner, one being a sleazy jackass and the other wise-cracking cute kid. Jackman and Goyo manage to act above the material they are given and deliver some strong performances. Also, there is some good-looking cinematography by Mauro Fiore. A man who knows how to shoot action scenes, his talent contributes a lot to this film. Speaking of the fight scenes, although the human side of the story is a lot more engaging than expected, it is all about the robots. For a change, I had no problem with robots hitting each other. The animatronics and motion-capture technology, alongside some great CGI give the film a unique artistic direction. Each of the robots looks distinct and unique, and the fights between them do feel real and hard-hitting, as though they aren't just blobs of effects falling around. Those working on the film have given the robots true weight, and the way in which the fight scenes are constructed make the film have a real 'big fight' feel that should be present in all boxing movies. Also, the film's overall mise-en-scene is well-established, and makes you believe in this rather ludicrous idea of a film as something legitimate. Finally, Shawn Levy has done a very admirable job in taking control of this film. Out of his comedic comfort zone, he does a good job of increasing Real Steel's credibility, and handles this movie with efficiency and with a great degree of restraint: I've seen all too many times a certain director's indulgences in explosions and robots hitting each other, so Levy's approach is refreshing and gives life to what could have been a vacuous and lifeless film.

Despite being a very good film, there are problems with Real Steel. For starters, Danny Elfman, a composer I like very much, delivers a really murder-by-numbers score. It contains a lot of his trademarks, though the score sounds like someone trying to do a poor imitation of Danny Elfman. It's like those who hired him for the film just said to him "Go and do a Danny Elfman score." Unlike Hans Zimmer, who did not go and do a 'Hans Zimmer score' for Rango, Elfman just goes and does a flat and dull score. It is a shame considering his talents as a film composer. The film is also hampered by John Gatins' script, written with the same approach Elfman took to composition. In fairness to him, there is probably only so far one can stretch the film's central concept, but it doesn't change the fact that this script is not up to scratch. All of the characters are written in a stereotypically cliche manner, and as such, while Jackman and Goyo manage to act above the roles they have been assigned, the same cannot be said of Evangeline Lilly, Hope Davis, Karl Yune and Olga Fonda. Each of these actors seem dumbfounded by the shoddy material they have been given, and it is a particular shame with Lilly and Davis, as they are both very good actresses. Also, there are instances of really terrible dialogue that take away from the believability of the film, making it feel like something more hyperreal than it already is. (Sorry if I sound like I'm rambling, I'm listening to The Lion King soundtrack's ...To Die For, the scene of Mufasa's death) Finally, someone (or a few people) needed a rap on the knuckles, as Real Steel is at least twenty minutes too long, and required some vigilance from the editor Dean Zimmerman, Shawn Levy and the film's producers.

Despite the murder-by-numbers score by Danny Elfman and a script by John Gatins that seriously affects some of the film's acting performances, Real Steel is a surprising pleasure of a film. Jackman and Goyo act above and beyond the characters written for them, Mauro Fiore shoots a good-looking film, which helps to no end in the wonderful fight scenes. The animatronics, motion-capture and CGI departments should take great pride in their work here. Also, the strong mise-en-scene ensures that you buy this otherwise ludicrous concept as a legitimate future-sport. Finally, Shawn Levy shows the control that a certain somebody (cough... Michael... cough cough.... Bay) is seriously lacking, and ensures a good degree of audience enjoyment in this picture about robots hitting one another.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 7.0/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Mellow (chilling to Hans Zimmer, about to walk dog)

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Barbarossa: Siege Lord

2011-10-27T15:20:00.000-07:00

Directed by: Renzo Martinelli

Produced by: Renzo Martinelli

Vlad Paunescu

Riccardo Pintus

Screenplay by: Renzo Martinelli

Giorgio Schottler

Anna Samueli

Story by: Renzo Martinelli

Giorgio Schottler

Starring: Rutger Hauer

Raz Degan

F. Murray Abraham

Christo Jivkov

Music by: Aldo De Scalzi

Pivio

Cinematography by: Fabio Chianchetti

Editing by: Osvaldo Bargero

Studio(s): Martinelli Film Company International

Distributed by: 01 Distribuzione

Metrodome Distribution

Release date(s): October 2, 2009 (Milan Premier)

October 9, 2009 (Italy)

April 4, 2011 (United Kingdom, Straight-to-DVD release)

Running time: 124 minutes

Country: Italy

Language: English

Budget: €10,000,000

Box office revenue: (Unavailable)

Hey folks, there isn't really much to say, seeing as how I haven't done much at all apart from some quality bonding time with the dog over the past couple of days, so, let's talk about the future. Being topical at the moment, I must declare my love for Halloween. I prefer it to the Christmas festivities, for unlike that season almost-forced cordiality, Halloween is about letting all the freaks come out to play. There is a liberation, freedom and unity in dressing up and losing all inhibitions. In the past, I have dressed as The Joker, Robert Smith and an early-80s English skinhead (this time last year, I was bald, no thanks to drunken debauchery at a house party!). This year, I'll be dressing up as The Crow, a character from both the film and even better graphic novel by James O'Barr. I read it earlier on this year, and although really liking the movie, the raw purity of a man's soul being bore upon the page makes for some powerful reading. Alongside Watchmen, it is my joint-favourite graphic novel, and in tribute of O'Barr and his wonderful work, I pay homage by donning these colours at Halloween.

I know, that doesn't have much to do with film, but as Bill Hicks said to the Christians whom he offended, "forgive me." Anyway, here we have Barbarossa: Siege Lord to swallow, if indeed it is a film possible to be swallowed. To be frank, I bought this film on a whim. I saw it for £3 in my local Tesco, and despite being a direct-to-DVD flick, thought it'd be good to review: it stars Rutger Hauer, one of my favourite actors, as Barbarossa, in a film surrounding his struggles with the Lombard League, who attempt to maintain independence from the Holy Roman Empire. I figured, it couldn't be that bad, it's got Rutger Hauer and F. Murray Abraham, who I haven't seen onscreen in some time, and is going to at least a decent flick with some good production design and battle scenes. As ever, I apply the same rules to my reviews as I do the films I judge, so, whether or not I did or did not like this film is still up in the air, though congratulate yourself if it is so predictable to you the direction I am going with this, and shame on me!

Okay then, let's start off with the good about Barbarossa. For a feature that I have just found is budgeted at €10 million, there is a well-established mise-en-scene. The costumes are all reflective of the period that the film is trying to represent. Also, there is some strong production design, lending the film a certain sense of believability and legitimacy. Finally, I thought that F. Murray Abraham was good, and that there was a decent character arc for Raz Degan as Alberto de Guissano.

That's it. That really is it. There is nothing else that is praiseworthy regarding this film. Now, before I get my claws dug in here, it must be said that since seeing the film I have done some research on Barbarossa. In the United States, it was released as Sword Of War, with an extra fifteen minutes to its running time. Also, in Italy, the country in which the film was produced, it was shown in two parts, both a hundred minutes each, on television. Thus, my review can only be a reflection of the version released in the United Kingdom. In my final example before I get stuck in, Rutger Hauer is marketed as the lead actor in this version, yet even in the finished piece presented to me, it is obvious he is in a supporting capacity. So, to start with what is bad, there is some really woeful dubbing. Each of the lines spoken by the voiceover cast are delivered as though they are reading from the telephone directory and not a script supposedly laden with emotion. Also, the dialogue is not in sync with the actors' mouths: at least Sergio Leone, who could barely speak English at the best of times, understood synchronisation to 'elude' the audience from pointing bad dubbing out. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure that Rutger Hauer and F. Murray Abraham speak Italian, so would it not be easier to release as a foreign-language feature, as opposed to the wasted time and effort put in bad dubbing? There is no effort whatsoever made to make the material sound vaguely interesting. Speaking of the material, in fairness to them it would be pretty hard to make this material seem greater than it is. I'm not sure if the bad dubbers are reading off the same hymn-sheet as Renzo Martinelli, but Jesus this dialogue is woeful. If God were a film critic, he'd be going Old Testament on these screenwriters, bringing down plagues and killing their first-born children. It would be funny if it weren't far the fact that it is consistently bad and full of these moments that say, 'isn't this glorious? Come, peasant, hear how we speak like noblemen.' Imagine the voice of a nobleman in your head and chances are you're not far off in being able to improvise everything written in the script by heart. After over two hours, I was just sick of the same old schtick of love, valour, honour, pride, courage and most of all, chivalry. Don't get me wrong, I like The Knight's Tale in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, which contains all this content (and study Late Medieval Literature), but this just goes on and on and on: the tactic is subtlety and naturalism, and this dialogue is everything but these. This is just dialogue, now we'll talk about structuring. At the beginning of the film, Barbarossa is built up as the main character: we see him talk about various situations and do some brave things: he is set up as the protagonist and a sympathetic character, and in many ways the tone it takes resembles Alexander Nevsky, in that the conquering of the thieving peasantry of Milan is a justifiable cause. Then, less than half-way through, the film does an about-face, and tries to have us sympathise with the Milanese who have just been presented by the film as thieving scoundrels, at the expense of the rape and pillage of Barbarossa and his men. It's an about-turn that never works and may as well have people with placards running around saying 'GOODIES ONSCREEN!' and 'BADDIES ONSCREEN!' Furthermore, the film has way too many subplots and different things going on that it ends up swallowing itself into a black hole created by the sheer molecular badness of the film. Finally, film is a medium of trickery and illusion: even if it is a documentary, the filmmaker's job is to make the audience believe what they are seeing on the screen. At one point, there is a low-angle shot that shows about twenty to thirty cavalrymen go past, which had me think "that's a lot of horses, this film has scale." However, it reveals its tricks in the worst way imaginable: having these twenty to thirty cavalry badly matted on to a background of a hundred really badly CGI cavalry, which resemble the creatures from Attack The Block, but at least that is a film in the dark, whereas this is in broad daylight on a large horizon! This is preposterous, and at one point we what looks like a high-angle shot but was probably a retrograde version of Rome: Total War, as we are shown about a hundred horses do a ninety-degree turn in the space of less than two seconds. Believe me, I counted, and the turn is botched too!

Aside from some good mise-en-scene, acting from F. Murray Abraham and Raz Degan, I have nothing more to say about Barbarossa: Siege Lord. If I ever speak to Rutger Hauer or interview him, I've got to ask him about this film, for the version I saw is woeful. I hated virtually everything about the film, which is no short affair at just over two hours long. It is drawn out, boring and seriously lacking in the things that make up a good film. Seeing as how I had this on DVD, it was the closest I ever got to pressing the stop button and just saying the overly dramatic "no!," a cliche which appears on more than one occasion in this film. With Renzo Martinelli having scribed, produced and directed this terrible film, he has a lot to answer for in the auteur work, and I mean that in the worst way possible. I hated Swinging With The Finkels, but Barbarossa: Siege Lord brings me down to the depths of my reviewing spectrum. I feel like Joseph from Tyrannosaur, and found myself wanting Peter Mullan to just show up, call them all cunts and knock two tons of shit out of them! See what I've done? I hate using the c-word, but that is how low this film brought me. Speaking of Peter Mullan, I bought Neds today, my favourite film of the year. To purge me of the sin of watching Barbarossa: Siege Lord, I'm watching Neds again. Go get it, 'tis well worth every penny, cent, whatever the hell kind of currency you use to pay for things. Barbarossa: Siege Lord? No, no, no!

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 0.8/10 (My first 'zero rating' in a couple of years!)

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Relaxed (considering the venom I injected into the review! Hey, I've got beer, crisps and Neds, and I'm not a bleeding thicky, I'm Billericay Dickie, and I'm doing, very well!)

P.S. I half-contemplated making a Wicker Man to burn this DVD in! More propagandist than Eisenstein, and clearly a poor attempt at harking back to the peplum's of 1950s, which weren't particularly good anyway! Oh, yes, I forgot, the 'masterwork' of the Emotional Heartstrings Orchestra sucked!

P.P.S. People crying for "freedom" was appropriated by this film from what other film? Hint: not Cry Freedom.

P.P.P.S. I'm going to stop now: I keep remembering bits of the film I hated!

P.P.P.P.S. Come now, let us never speak of this again!

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Tyrannosaur

2011-10-26T15:28:00.000-07:00

Directed by: Paddy Considine

Produced by: Diarmid Scrimshaw

Mark Herbert

Screenplay by: Paddy Considine

Starring: Peter Mullan

Olivia Colman

Eddie Marsan

Paul Popplewell

Cinematography by: Erik Wilson

Editing by: Pia Di Ciaula

Studio(s): Warp Films

Inflammable Films

Distributed by: Screen Gems (United States/Canada)

StudioCanal UK (United Kingdom)

Release date(s): January 21, 2011 (Sundance Film Festival, World Premiere)

October 7, 2011 (United Kingdom and Ireland)

Country: United Kingdom

Language: English

Budget: £750,000

Box office revenue: (Unavailable as of publication)

Hey gang, me again. As ever, I have updates on the film front. I have now seen Barbarossa: Siege Lord, which will be the subject for my next reviews. Also, when it comes to schedule, Never Let Me Go will be watched in the next day or two, on Friday I'll be making a trip to the Strand to see either Real Steel or Contagion and I'll try to get to see something in the Queen's Film Theatre over the weekend for either We Need To Talk About Kevin or The Ides Of March. I Saw The Devil will be reviewed next month, as will The Adjustment Bureau, as I managed to pick up a copy on Tuesday. Finally, this is old news I know, but just go and watch The Wrestler. I have a tear in my eye listening to the Bruce Springsteen title track, and it has reminded me that I need to get down to watching my Best Film of 2008 once again.

Right, so let's get down to unearthing Tyrannosaur. This is the feature directorial debut of Paddy Considine, one of the best working actors in film at this time. Having made his name in films with a gritty, vérité style working with directors such as Shane Meadows, Jim Sheridan and Paul Greengrass, it will comes as no surprise that his first film is of the same ilk. The film stars Peter Mullan, coming off a career high writing and directing the fantastic Neds, as Joseph, a violent-tempered alcoholic, who becomes friends with Hannah (Olivia Colman), a religious charity shop worker whose kindly exterior hides a secret in her life.

To start off with what is good, the acting must certainly be discussed. 2011 has been a great year for Peter Mullan, and his stellar performance in Tyrannosaur has only made it all the more so. Joseph is a man who struggles to control his violent temperament, and Mullan portrays him as a man whose very movements must be watched. Any little tic or flinch could be the sign of him about to snap, and Mullan's sustenance of these attributes ensure that Joseph's character is forever surrounded with a sense of tension, even in his quieter moments. He is a volcano that goes from one to eleven with the slightest provocation, a contradictory figure who reacts violently, even when he is in the wrong. Olivia Colman is fantastic in this film. Although Mullan gives a great performance, arguably, in many ways Colman has the tougher job. Near unrecognisable from Hot Fuzz, she embodies her character. You buy this person as someone who could exist in the real world, and that this character did indeed exist in the real world. The way in which she (and Considine's script) reveal this character, gradually peeling back layers, is very subtle and intelligent. Whenever her secrets come to the forefront, the complexity and expertise of her performance is unveiled. Also very good, though in a lesser, more supporting capacity than the leads is Eddie Marsan, who plays a character not unlike Joseph, possessing complex hypocritical tendencies. Marsan does this to the same level of credibility as the leads. The technical achievements of this film too must be flagged up. Erik Wilson's cinematography portrays Leeds in an interesting, almost otherworldly manner: the visuals bring to mind a near post-apocalyptic dystopian universe of dog-eat-dog mentality, with force and brutality being the rule of thumb. Although it does look suitably desolate (for which the location scouts should be credited), Wilson's camera gives the film a beauty that is reminiscent of what I described as the "savage grace" that came to mind with Peter Mullan's own Neds. Also, the film has some terrific sound design/editing. Filled with mostly diegetic sounds, this decision does not give the audience an opportunity to sit back and relax with a degree of detachment: we are in there with these characters, both witness and participant in this bitter earth. However, there is a wonderful moment in the film in which the music that is playing diegetically swells over on the soundtrack and plays non-diegetically. It's a fine bit of work that gives both the characters and the audience a sense of release, before being thrust back into the savagery that dominates the film. Decisions like this must be credited to Considine. I've always liked Considine from the first time I saw him onscreen in Dead Man's Shoes. That is a film that could have been a nuts-and-bolts exploitation film, and in some ways it is, but Considine (and Meadows) really elevate it to a level of great significance and inject believability and social realism into an otherwise unfathomable plot (that's not an insult, I love Dead Man's Shoes!). Here, his sensibilities towards the subtle, realistic and true to life lend themselves to Tyrannosaur, which could also have been an exploitation flick, but is in fact a powerful piece of drama. Tonally, particularly at the beginning, in which Joseph in a fit of rage kills his beloved dog, we are at rock bottom with him: Considine throws us into the depths of hell and asks us 'is it possible to escape a dead-end situation?' This sort of question is the kind every filmmaker should be asking the audience, and Considine, both as screenwriter and more so as director, should be credited for this.

Tyrannosaur is most certainly a great film. Nevertheless, there are problems that deny it from being the masterwork that it could have been. Although he does it well, Considine scribes this film in a manner that is nuts-and-bolts. It is unfortunate, but I can’t say that I haven’t seen this kind of subject matter done better in Gary Oldman’s Nil By Mouth. As such, having seen it done before, I’d expect the film to not be as predictable as it ends up being. Regardless of the flair with which the film is made, you can see from where the film begins the direction the plot will take you a mile off. Truly great drama should have you caught up in the moment, and not thinking about (and correctly guessing) what will follow in the next scene. For a film so vérité, it is disappointing to see these particular elements of contrivance, which take away from the overall effect of the film.

Aside from the extreme predictabilities in Considine’s occasionally problematic script, Tyrannosaur is a great film. It boasts superb lead performances from Peter Mullan and Olivia Colman, with a strong supporting performance from Eddie Marsan. Also, in the technical department, there is some fine cinematography by Erik Wilson and excellent sound design that integrates the audience into its savage setting. Finally, this film establishes Paddy Considine not only as a great actor, but a talent to be reckoned with as a writer-director.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 8.5/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Relaxed (feet up after a long day)

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Fast Five

2011-10-24T12:29:00.000-07:00

Directed by: Justin Lin

Produced by: Neil H. Moritz

Vin Diesel

Michael Fottrell

Screenplay by: Chris Morgan

Based on: Characters created by Gary Scott Thompson

Starring: Vin Diesel

Paul Walker

Jordana Brewster

Dwayne Johnson

Music by: Brian Tyler

Cinematography by: Stephen F. Windon

Editing by: Kelly Matsumoto

Fred Raskin

Christian Wagner

Studio: Original Film

One Race Films

Distributed by: Universal Pictures

Release date(s): April 20, 2011 (Australia)

April 21, 2011 (United Kingdom)

April 29, 2011 (United States)

Running time: 130 minutes

Country: United States

Language: English

Portugese

Budget: $125 million

Box office revenue: $626, 137, 675

Heya folks, I said the reviews to be coming in regularly, I just didn't expect it to be a week before I got down to reviewing my next film. As scheduled, I did see Tyrannosaur, so a review for that will follow this one, as will definite reviews for Barbarossa: Siege Lord and Never Let Me Go. I Saw The Devil might be saved till next month, but I intend on seeing one (or all) of these films: Real Steel, Don't Be Afraid Of The Dark and Contagion, with room perhaps for another trip to the QFT to see We Need To Talk About Kevin. Incidentally, I watched Bela Tarr's Damnation last night, and was struck at how engrossed I was in Tarr's highly unconventional film stylistics. As a breather from contemporary cinema, I suggest you take a look.

Alright, so here we have the fifth film in The Fast and the Furious film series, Fast Five. To put things into context, I really liked the first film, released in 2001 for it's terrific action sequences and Vin Diesel, who I feel really should have went to do better things, particularly after 2002's xXx, a highly underrated action flick also directed by Rob Cohen. Flashforward eight years, with both Cohen and Diesel having had a string of critical and commercial flops, and we get Fast & Furious, the fourth film in the series, which was sold on the idea of reuniting the original cast. Now, Fast & Furious was a terrible film that in a different world would have been a parody of the original, so if I'm honest I wasn't looking forward to Fast Five. After being busted out of a prison van in a suitably ridiculous crash (at least a news report acknowledges the absurdity of no one being killed), Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel), his sister Mia (Jordana Brewster) and friend Brian O'Connor (Paul Walker), now fugitives on the run, escape to Rio de Janeiro, where they hide out with friend Vince (Matt Schulze), and end up doing a job stealing three cars on a train. However, after discovering the other participants are only interested in one car, Dom has Mia steal it. Now, with both the law, in the form of DSS agent Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson), and the criminal world, headed up by crime lord Hernan Reyes (Joaquim de Almeida), the crew discover in the car a computer chip giving them details to Reyes' criminal empire, and decide to steal his personal vault, containing $100 million.

To start with what is good about the film, I must flag up the film's central concept. I may have missed numbers two and three, but judging from Fast & Furious the concept of guys and their cars was well-worn. It was a wise decision in the pre-production process to go with a heist film, as it makes Fast Five feel unique in this canon of films. This is the kind of refresher that the series really needed, and it pays off in the finished product. Speaking of refreshers, lets talk about Dwayne Johnson. Now, if I'm honest, the former Rock has had a bit of a mixed career in films, having some decent supporting/cameo roles in Get Smart and The Other Guys, but also being lead in the mediocre Tooth Fairy and the truly messy Richard Kelly regurgitation-presented-as-film Southland Tales. In Fast Five, he gets his best screen role to date in Luke Hobbs. From the moment that he enters the film, you know that once Hobbs is on the scene, shit is going to go down. Johnson's presence and charisma give the character a genuine sense of machismo that reminds you of the better work of Schwarzenegger and Stallone. Every time, Hobbs was in a scene, I got goosebumps, Johnson's pure intensity in the part fuels the testosterone-charged atmosphere that the film is getting at. Furthermore, because of Johnson's skill here, you buy him as a legitimate threat to Vin Diesel's Toretto, a character that in the series eye' could well be seen as invincible. Diesel too I must say is good in the film. It must be said though that he really shines in the face-off scenes between he and Johnson. Also, I must credit the film's technical aspects, particularly in relation to the action scenes. The production scouts have done a good job in finding good locations, and they are captured with a deft eye for strong images by Stephen F. Windon. Unlike Amir Mokri, who shot Fast & Furious, Windon actually lets you see what is going on, whilst maintaing a high level of intensity. This is important as the chase scenes in this film are the best I have since Inception last year. If there is one positive about the series as a whole, it's that they maintain a tradition of chase films that are a bit of a dying breed today. They have been expertly choreography by film's stunt team, each scene topping the other, the climactic chase easily up there with among the best chase' in film history. Trust me, they really are that good. Justin Lin directs these scenes as good as they were bad in Fast & Furious: this time, we can see what is going on, we can see who is driving what car, so that, amidst the madness and chaos, we do know what is happening. Finally, Fast Five is also a film that knows it's history, and is far more self-aware than previous instalments. Thankfully, as opposed to stupid breaking-of-the-fourth-wall or obscure little in-jokes, it does this in a fun manner that manages to engage its audience.

Fast Five was a real surprise to me in terms of just how much I liked it. However, there are a number of problems with the film. Let's start with the script. The central idea of 'heist film' is strong and refreshing, but there are a lot of issues here. For starters, there is some really woeful dialogue, especially when the movie starts to take itself a little too seriously. I liked some of the more tongue-in-cheek, light-hearted stuff in the film, but when the film shifts mode into 'there's something more this than (FILL IN BLANK),' it ends up being melodramatic in the worst ways possible. Also, at two hours and five minutes, with way too many twists and turns in the plot, it becomes unnecessarily convoluted, contrived and long. This film could have been cut by twenty-thirty minutes to even out the folds. While I praised Dwayne Johnson's presence in the film, has scene-stealing performance only highlights all the more the limits of Paul Walker's. Walker was very good in the original, and served as a great counteract to Vin Diesel. The way that Fast & Furious was written, being 'the return of Dom Toretto' and all, made Paul Walker second fiddle. Here, he's even less than second fiddle, and it means that one of the film's lead actors gives a performance that's like Keanu Reeves when he is on a very bad day (P.S. I do like Keanu). Diesel's role in the ensemble is the cool guy, Johnson's is the badass mofo, while Walker's is the boring guy. Finally, I do have a problem with Brian Tyler's score. He is becoming akin to Alesandre Desplat, in that he is a composer of skill who just continues to churn out boring, cliched nonsense. He did great scores to Frailty and Bubba Ho-tep, so why do I hear this cashed-in set of compositions every time he steps foot in the action film department. He needs to not follow the rulebook (even if it is his own) for a change, because it is exactly what you would expect. Look Brian, what's that, a villain? Ooh, we must have an instrumental cue that indicates that he is villainous. Eyes open Tyler, it's a scene of emotion, we must bring in strings and a piano, cause everyone knows from every other film they have ever seen that these instruments indicate emotion. Please Brian, give us a break!

This film contains a messy script. This film contains a poor performance from Paul Walker. This film contains a shoddy score. However, for all its problems, in a manner not unlike the Jason Statham film Blitz, Fast Five is a good movie. For a change, I can see where exactly a major blockbuster's budget has went. Some of the best car chases in recent memory are to be found in this film, directed well by Justin Lin. It also helps that the cinematography is done in such a manner that you do know what is going on and the camera is not just being shook to shit. Finally, in the context of what was a stagnant series, Fast Five is a real refresher. Transforming (eugh, hate what the word reminds me of!) the established series format in that of a heist film, and the addition of Dwayne Johnson to the main cast, who from reports on the upcoming sixth film is to return, ensure that there is still life yet in this series.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 6.3/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Glad (when I get to bed)

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - [●REC]²

2011-10-20T15:34:00.000-07:00

Directed by: Jaume Belaguero

Paco Plaza

Produced by: Julio Fernandez

Carlos Fernandez

Screenplay by: Jaume Belaguero

Paco Plaza

Starring: Jonathan Mellor

Oscar Sanchez Zafra

Ariel Casas

Alejandro Casaseca

Pablo Rosso

Pep Molina

Andrea Ros

Alis Batllori

Pau Poch

Juli Fabregas

Nico Baixas

Javier Botet

Carlos Ollala

Cinematography by: Pablo Rosso

Editing by: Xavi Gimenez

Distributed by: Magnolia Pictures

Release date(s): October 2, 2009 (Spain, theatrical release)

February 27, 2010 (Frightfest, festival)

May 28, 2010 (United Kingdom, theatrical release)

Running time: 85 minutes

Country: Spain

Language: Spanish

Budget: €4, 500,000 (estimated)

Box office revenue: $18, 497, 446

It's amazing what a little bit of cut-and-paste will do: thanks to this function, I do not have to writhe every time I look at the bolderised version of the film's title (REC 2, for the last time). Anywho, I've been keeping up with the films. Fast Five will be my next review, and shall be followed by Tyrannosaur. There will be more, but I have also been doing some research and there are a few films in particular I am looking forward to. I've probably already mentioned 13 Assassins, the latest Takashi Miike film, which is released by the ever-reliable Artificial Eye in the UK, but I would like to flag up a future release by the distributor, The Turin Horse. This is the new film by Bela Tarr, most famous for his extreme long-takes and the film Werckmeister Harmoniak, that depicts the events surrounding Friedrich Nietzsche's mental breakdown as a result of witnessing the flogging of a horse. Personally I've always thought that this story would have made a great film, so it is with pleasure that it has finally been made. Also, I'm really looking forward to Glenn Close' adaptation of George Moore's Albert Nobbs. Having played the character on stage and trying to turn it into a film for nearly thirty years, I hope that Close' labour of love pays off.

So, the next film I will be reviewing is [●REC]² (thank you, trusty cut-and-paste). Just to put this into context, the reason I am reviewing this now two-year-old film is because it was only released in the UK in 2010 and I have only found a DVD copy this year. Sometimes, in the case of foreign-language films, they can be out for a number of years before they get a theatrical or even DVD release, such as Hayao Miyazaki's films. Anyway, this is the sequel to [●REC], a good horror film that was amongst the wave of 2007's shaky camerawork horror films, the best of which was Matt Reeves' Cloverfield. Taking place in the minutes after the events of the first film, Dr. Owen (Jonathan Mellor) enters the apartment block in which the first film is set with a GEO team with the intent being to contain the situation. However, things begin to reveal their true nature, and alongside the horror of the infected people, there is the mystery of what is really going on and who's pulling the strings.

Much of what is good about the first [●REC] film is carried over to the sequel. Pablo Rosso returns as the film's director of photography, and his touch on the camera is certainly contributory to what works about this film. The shaky cam deal has always been problematic, as a lot of action filmmakers seem to have got the idea that after Paul Greengrass' innovations in his films we must up that and shake the camera to shit. Rosso shows some great restraint, focusing on certain images that unnerve and disturb, while managing to maintain a strong, consistent sense of intensity. In light of those who misuse the technique Roger Ebert has labelled "La Shakily Queasy-Cam," Rosso's work excels. Also, unlike much of mainstream horror cinema, which tends to water down the 'terror of horror,' [●REC]², like its predecessor, does not pull any punches on the nastiness. This is a big fat red eighteen for a reason, so do not let children anywhere near it. Also, the first half of the film is strong, undiluted horror cinema. Everything is gradually revealed in a slow manner that gives us an answer, but then changes the questions, to paraphrase Rowdy Roddy Piper. This is of importance particularly in relation to Dr. Owen, whose secretive nature is portrayed very well by Jonathan Mellor. Finally, at around ninety minutes, this is a watchable horror film that is stripped down to efficiency and is rid of a lot of excess flab.

There was much I liked about [●REC]², though frankly there was as much wrong with it as there was right. The main problem, as with most films, is fundamentally due to the script. As I mentioned, the first half of the film is strong and undiluted horror cinema. The same cannot be said of the second half. At the half-way point (no spoilers, don't worry), there is a certain 'change' if you will in the proceedings of the film. Here, the film loses it's central focus, and from then on it comes across as a rushed mess with any little excuse just to bring the film to it's foregone conclusion, cause 'hey, we've got sequels to think about.' These problems that involve the script's structure also screw with the editing: a dramatic change becomes rather deflating and anticlimactic, as opposed to the breath of fresh air it is meant to be. Xavi Gimenez' editing as a result seems as mangled and as rushed as the script. Unlike the first film, which was a controlled, if cliched work, this film exhibits a real lack of control from returning directors Jaume Belaguero and Paco Plaza, who I worry may become the next Takashi Shimizu with regards to their future plans with the [●REC] concept/series. What started off as a very good film ended up by its climax to be rushed and dare I say rather boring.

[●REC]² is one of those cases where it we are led into thinking that this is going to be a much better film than it turns out. It is undiluted horror with a strong visual style from Pablo Rosso that, even with cliches, is filled with a sense of dread and unease. Jonathan Mellor is a good anchor for the central story and also there is present some interesting content surrounding the whole story. However, the script is structurally a fundamental mess, with half of the film seeming rushed, an issue that extends over to the film's editing. The only word that came to mind during the 'change' was "wrong!" Finally, what was bold and daring about the original [●REC] is starting to get old, all the more considering the director's are no longer exhibiting the control they had over their work. Takashi Shimizu did the same and made six different versions of Ju-On in as many years. Even if this is a step above the standard of horror we have been brought to expect, Balaguero and Plaza need to get on to making new stories.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 5.5/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Energised (all that serotonin from the gym, doubt it'll last long!)

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Johnny English Reborn

2011-10-17T10:45:00.001-07:00

Directed by: Oliver Parker

Produced by: Tim Bevan

Eric Fellner

Screenplay by: William Davies

Hamish McColl

Starring: Rowan Atkinson

Gillian Anderson

Rosamund Pike

Dominic West

Daniel Kaluuya

Richard Schif

Tim McKinnery

Music by: Ilan Ishkeri

Cinematography by: Danny Cohen

Editing by: Guy Bensley

Studio(s): StudioCanal

Relativity Media

Working Title Films

Distributed by: Universal Pictures

Release date(s): October 7, 2011 (United Kingdom/International)

October 21, 2011 (North America)

Running time: 101 minutes

Country(s): United Kingdom

France

Language: English

Box office (as of publication): $85, 100,000

Once again, I have been slack. However, not withstanding the university work and having spent my weekend taking my Scout troop to Ardnavalley, I do have a number of updates coming in for movies. If I can schedule things right (which I should be able to), I can get at least four reviews done this week, and can guarantee (and I mean guarantee) in the upcoming weeks reviews for REC 2 (I know, it was out in the UK in 2010, but this was the earliest I could get it), Fast Five, Never Let Me Go, Tyrannosaur and Barbarossa: Siege Lord, which was released on DVD this year. There is the potential for me to watch I Saw The Devil and a few others, so keep your eyes posted. On another note, I saw my first Charlie Chaplin film in City Lights last week and was spellbound. It was significantly funnier than most of the comedies I have seen in recent years, and also packs a strong emotional punch of pathos that conjured the kind of emotion that one rarely feels but recognises when they know they have seen a good film.

In a film not unlike the slapstick that of Chaplin, Rowan Atkinson returns in one of his most-loved roles, that of Johnny English. The character began as 'Richard Latham' in a series of Barclaycard advertisements, and due to their popularity, evolved into a 2003 film which earned over $160 million worldwide, and became arguably Atkinson's most well-known character excepting Mr. Bean. In this film, Johnny English (Atkinson) is found learning martial arts and self-control in Tibet as penance for the outcome of a disastrous earlier mission. MI7 identifies him as the best possible agent for a new mission, much to the chagrin of MI7's 'Pegasus' (Gillian Anderson). His task involves curtailing a group of international assassins from killing the Chinese premier and upsetting international politics/relations for the British government.

To start with what is good, we must focus on Atkinson. This film could not be more so a vehicle for him than it is, so it is a treat to see that he is on form. One of the greatest living comedians, Atkinson takes real care in constructing his characters, with all their tics and eccentricities, every little movement associated and of relevance to the character. He is always a pleasure to behold onscreen, no matter what the context. Also praiseworthy about this film is the mise-en-scene. Like the James Bond film's that it parodies, J.E.R. is an international affair, with some great location scouting having been done. When not looking at some grand scenery, the production designers have provided us with some well-made interior sets. Furthermore, the costumes add to what is most certainly a believable film-world. Finally, there are a few good gags that involve Tim McKinnery, mistaken identity(s) and a helicopter.

While Rowan Atkinson in anything is usually a warm welcome, it's the meal behind the glossy presentation that one judges a film by. In this case, the meal gets stale rather quick, thanks in most part to a barely digestible script. Atkinson may be a terrific comedian, but there is only so much anyone can do with this stuff. The actors (and the audience) are subjected to some terrible bits of dialogue that couldn't be any more overt in the meanings they are trying to get across. Rosamund Pike, Daniel Kaluuya and Dominic West suffer the most, and as a result give some wooden and lifeless performances. Also, there is an intense amount of predictability in the film, to the point where if you get a plot 'point' right once, you can guess the whole film from there. Even those who I have praised recently do not escape the firing line: Ilan Eshkeri, who after doing a great score for Blitz, has pulled a swerve not unlike Michael Giacchino earlier in the year, and paged in a score that is so dull and so lacking in life that reeks of a smell I can only identify as "Not Funny!" Speaking of stenches, the film's synchronisation of cinematography and editing in the case of the action scenes and special effects is pretty dire. For a movie that was clearly over $50 million budget-wise, it does itself no good that some of the scenes that are obviously (which they shouldn't be) green-screen had me thinking of some of the shots of Marlon Brando riding his motorcycle in 1954's The Wild One. Work of this quality, or lack thereof, is like something I see on SciFi at two in the morning from The Asylum. My final criticism is of director Oliver Parker. Regardless of how well things may have went on set, he has directed a cluster-fuck of a film that also happens to be very boring. He should have been able to identify some of the film's pitfalls and at least improve Johnny English Reborn to a certain extent, as opposed to leaving it in this rather castrated form.

It is a shame that Johnny English Reborn is as bad as it is. Though not quite in the level of Zookeeper and Swinging With The Finkels for bad comedy, this film has a rubbish script, bad score, and poor synchronisation of cinematography and editing/special-effects that really should have been noticed by director Oliver Parker. He should thank the great production designer(s), costume designer(s), location scouts and Rowan Atkinson for keeping this from being one of the worst film's of the year. However, being in that purgatory zone, Johnny English Reborn ends up being a forgettable film that has already faded a good bit from my memory. Rowan, I hope you got a good paycheque!

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 4.3/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Jakked! (For a change, I'm ready to take on the world!)

P.S. Had to pick that picture: Rowan Atkinson pulling faces can't help but bring out a laugh!

The Thin White Dude's Movie Of The Month: September 2011 - Neds

2011-10-10T08:43:00.000-07:00

An extraordinarily powerful film of savage grace. Peter Mullan's highly personal film has the feel of someone who wishes to portray this subculture with great care. Mullan does so, and directs his own script with terrific energy that is reflected in the amazing lead performance by the debuting Conor McCarron. Along with fine cinematography/lighting by Roman Osin and music by Craig Armstrong, all these elements combine to make a film akin to This Is England and Scum, and currently stands as my film of the year.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 9.3/10

Runner-Up: Rango - Gore Verbinski and Johnny Depp shock with this great surreal, wacky and pure bonkers animated comedy

Avoid Like The Plague: Killer Elite - A really bad action flick that tries too hard to be something it isn't

Second-Most Deadly Disease: One Day - Nuts-and-bolts, overly cliched romance that is predictable at every turn

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Blitz

2011-10-07T12:13:00.000-07:00

Directed by: Elliot Lester

Produced by: Steve Chasman

Zygi Kamasa

Samuel Hadiba

Based on: Blitz by Ken Bruen

Screenplay: Nathan Parker

Starring: Jason Statham

Paddy Considine

Aidan Gillen

David Morrissey

Zawe Ashton

Music by: Ilan Eshkeri

Studio(s): Lions Gate Entertainment

Davis Films

Distributed by: Lionsgate UK

Release date(s): May 20, 2011 (United Kingdom)

August 23, 2011 (United States DVD Premiere)

Running time: 97 minutes

Country: United Kingdom

Language: English

Hey folks, 'tis I, The Thin White Dude (well, you'd expect it to be, unless some troll is going round masquerading as me)! Over the next week, I expect to be getting reviews for at least three new films in. As this is the last film for the month of September, it will be followed by a review of September. For October, I can guarantee a review to come in for Never Let Me Go, the adaptation of Kazuo Ishigiro's novel by Mark Romanek, and I won't guarantee any others in particular, as all are subject to change, but I would like to see Tyrannosaur and Johnny English Reborn. I've missed Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and Drive, but no doubt I'll get down to them at some point.

And here we have the second-part of our Jason Statham double-bill Blitz. A much smaller affair than Killer Elite, Blitz is a crime thriller in which The Stath plays hard-boiled cop Tom Brant, who despite an excellent track record is surrounded by notoriety and controversy for his often brutish tactics. This is the cause for some tension when straight-laced Sgt Porter Nash (Paddy Considine) is chosen to head up an investigation involving serial cop-killer Barry Weiss (Aidan Gillen), who is going by the nickname of 'Blitz.'

In many ways, Blitz is a strong film. Jason Statham delivers the kind of role that he does best, a sort of cross between Hard Boiled's Tequila and Harvey Keitel's Bad Lieutenant. Brant is not a nice guy, makes no qualms about it, but gets the job done. Statham portrays this single-mindedness with virtuosos and most importantly charisma. He isn't just an ill-tempered grump: thanks to Statham, he's a watchable ill-tempered grump. Also very good is Aidan Gillen, who makes the most out of what is an unquestionably simplistic part and injects it with a great degree of credibility. Out of the main cast however, the best is definitely Paddy Considine. Proving once again his unique ability to be able to slither into the shoes of every part he plays, he provides Blitz the three-dimensional and well-rounded side of things that film needs. It is interesting in that it heavily implied that his character is homosexual, and it is amazing to watch Considine take us all by surprise once again by giving us a police officer who is not shouting or ill-tempered, yet possesses a true inner strength. He and Statham bounce off one another very well, and elevate this from it's more genre/exploitation film roots. In comparison to Killer Elite, Blitz is a great example of less is more: it doesn't pretend to anything more than a genre film, but in doing so, puts itself in a more credible status than Killer Elite. Elliot Lester handles it in a manner of great efficiency, taking Nathan Parker's script and delivering a nuts-and-bolts, yet highly watchable crime thriller. The tone Lester takes with the film is wise, and there is a real nasty, grimy feel to the film not dissimilar to Michael Winner's Death Wish. It exudes this dirty kind of smell of whisky and fags, and frankly this really makes the movie. Speaking of grime, Ilan Eshkeri's original score is strong, as is additional soundtrack work from bands such as The Qemists, who all help contribute to the edginess that a film like Blitz really needs. Without this soundtrack, Blitz could have been a lot more boring, so it was refreshing to a bit of drum and bass in the form of Stombox in what could have been really dreary.

So yes, there you go, as I said, there is a lot that I liked about Blitz. However, there are also certain issues with Blitz that stop it from being the great film it really could have been. For starters, the script is in a number of ways a double-edged sword, for it's own strengths also turn out to be it's own weaknesses. Blitz will never be remembered as anything more than a good exploitation flick. Also, despite handling itself with efficiency, the movie felt at least a good twenty minutes longer than it was. For a ninety-minute film to feel as long as this, that isn't a good thing at all. Furthermore, the film is written in such a way that suggests it's attempts to tick all boxes in a marketing manner. Foot chase, check, killer does this, check, killer does that, check, all vaguely corrupt characters always get their comeuppances, check check. As a movie that has a strong jagged edge, it feels rather cheap to be structuring your film around these check-boxes. The ending too is a complete cop-out, feeling rather rushed and pasted on to a film that otherwise moves very well.

Despite it's obvious problems and inefficiencies that come with the film's double-edged sword of a script, Blitz is well worth a rental for the night in. The three main characters, particularly Paddy Considine, are on fine form, the film moves with efficiency backed up by a good soundtrack of drum and bass, and exudes a genuinely nasty exploitation film feel without trying to be anything more than it is.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 6.6/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Irritated (by runny nose!)

P.S. If you David Morrissey in your film, use him more!

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Killer Elite

2011-10-06T12:24:00.000-07:00

Directed by: Gary McKendry

Produced by: Michael Boughen

Tony Winley

Steve Chasman

Sigurjon Sighvatsson

Screenplay by: Matt Sherring

Based on: The Feather Men by Ranulph Fiennes

Starring: Jason Statham

Clive Owen

Yvonne Strahovski

Domonic Purcell

Robert De Niro

Music by: Johnny Klimek

Reinhold Heil

Cinematography by: Simon Duggan

Editing by: John Gulbert

Studio(s): Ambience Entertainment

Palomar Pictures

Omnilab Media

Distributed by: Open Road Films

Release date: September 23, 2011

Running time: 116 minutes

Country(s): United States

Australia

Language: English

Budget: $66-$70 million

Box office revenue (as of publication): $22, 239, 000

Hey dogs (I'm being all ghetto listening to Montel Vontavious Porter's new song Holla To The World), sup? Yes, I'll stop it. Anyway, this is the first of the Jason Statham double-bill. The Stathe is a busy man, and I'll be following this with a review for Blitz, a film he released earlier in the year. Both of these films, as I saw them in September, will be included for review as film's of this month, which will in turn follow from my later review of Blitz. Keep your eyes posted, it's a new month of film, and I'm going to be busy!

Well, as mentioned, here we are with the first of The Stathe Double-Bill, Killer Elite. As expected with a title like Killer Elite, we follow Danny Bryce (Jason Statham), a hitman who after retires after killing a man in front of his son, begrudgingly takes on one last job as his friend Hunter (Robert De Niro) has been kidnapped due to failing fails his previous hit, which Danny has been employed to take or else Hunter will be executed. The hit involves taking out a number of seriously hard S.A.S. men, one of whom (Spike Logan, played by Clive Owen) investigates the situation on behalf of The Feathermen, an organisation of former S.A.S. men dedicated to protecting their own. Purportedly, this is 'based on a true story,' the basis for which made up the central ideas of Ranulph Fiennes' book The Feather Men.

To start with what is good about Killer Elite, I must highlight the three central performances. None of them are what you would necessarily say are great performances, but they are good. Jason Statham is always a strong screen presence, and is one of the very few guys who play the 'hard man' role today that you legitimately buy as a hard man character. Even Bob De Niro, who has of late been cashing it in, does a decent job as the older mentor figure, and looks pretty badass carrying a Carbine. Saying that, I would like to see De Niro try again, the last proper good role I saw him in was Righteous Kill, an underrated film I think was shat on because it wasn't Heat. Clive Owen is very good here in a refreshingly entertaining villainous role as the intimidating Spike Logan. Whenever you have a movie of this type, which frankly just goes through the motions, it becomes that much more bearable whenever you leads of this quality to anchor the film. Finally, I must praise the production designers and location scouts. Killer Elite's mise-en-scene is that of $100 million plus film, and as such it is praiseworthy when your film's shooting locations look significantly more expensive than they are.

Perhaps I gave away the general tone of the review already, it probably reflects in the language I'm using, but I found Killer Elite a very, very boring and dull film. Gary McKendry is a director who has potential, but it is clear that he is a gun for hire here. Matt Sherring's script has to be one of the most base, simplistic and unimaginative in recent memory. For starters, the film is built as essentially a Jason Statham vehicle. Then, sure enough we have a little backstory arc going on for the Stath shown in flashback that is pretty piss poor (why does he always have flashbacks on planes?). Worst of all, in case we still thought it was a nuts-and-bolts action movie, we get a socio-political conspiracy going on that climaxes with one of the worst attempts at an autobiographical/self-referential plot point regarding the text upon which the film is based in film history. Excuse the Jamesian sentence! As Bryan Alvarez would say with regards to a bad wrestling match, this script is "minus-five stars!" Then, of course, what would a film like this be without a bad imitation of the DV Paul Greengrass action-film style. All of the action scenes are shot and edited around the idea of how much can we shake this camera? I've seen J.J. Abrams do this on the Star Trek DVD, don't think I don't know you are merely having a Christian Bale-esque freakout on the camera equipment? Don't worry, it's ok, rage and destruction is therapeutic, and at least you're getting a good movie out of it. Scratch that last one, but it does seem like they let Vinnie Jones do some guest cinematography and manhandle the cameras as though Ross Kemp has claimed he's a harder man again (in-joke for the Gervais-Merchant fans) and let Heath Ledger's The Joker ran rampant in the editing suite. To top it off, we have another appearance by the omnipresent EHO (Emotional Heartstrings Orchestra), this time by way of Johnny Klimek and Reinhold Heil. Like the rest of the film, the score represents unoriginal uniform consistency in mediocrity. Things get loud and things band during the action sequences, and this time, instead of the usual strings those guilty of EHO, we have the solo piano playing very minimalist. I was listening to bits of the score to refresh myself and get a feel for the film, but I got bored and thought fuck it, I'm listening to the Rango soundtrack. No film score, or film, should make their audience bored: their audience should engaged with the film. Despite having a full house to myself in The Strand (which also means I have supreme authority/monopoly of opinion on this one) with no distractions, I was bored to tears by Killer Elite. It didn't help that www.britinfo.net listed the film as being twenty minutes shorter than it was, so I committed a cardinal sin and answered the phone when my mother rang me. It's that boring.

Killer Elite is a shame of a film. Despite the star power of credible leads Jason Statham, Clive Owen and Robert De Niro, it is a really boring film. 'Boasting' one of the worst scripts in recent memory, being both a terribly shot and edited film and a nuts-and-bolts score, the overall picture that you end up getting is a bad action flick trying to be something it isn't and really failing in nearly every department possible.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 2.7/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Glad (buoyed by the thought I never have to address this film again, listening to the Rango soundtrack and about to start a movie I don't have to review)

Toodles M'Fers!