The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Mandela: Long Walk To Freedom

Directed by: Justin Chadwick

Produced by: Anant Singh

David M. Thompson

Screenplay by: William Nicholson

Based on: Long Walk To Freedom by Nelson Mandela

Starring: Idris Elba

Naomie Harries

Tony Kgoroge

Terry Pheto

Riaad Moosa

Music by: Alex Heffes

Cinematography by: Low Crawley

Editing by: Rick Russell

Studio(s): Imagenation Abu Dhabi

Participant Media

Distributed by: The Weinstein Company

Release date(s): September 7, 2013 (Toronto International Film Festival)

November 28, 2013 (South Africa)

December 25, 2013 (United States)

January 3, 2014 (United Kingdom)

Running time: 146 minutes

Country(s): United Kingdom

South Africa

Language: English

Production budget: $35 million

Box-office revenue (as of publication): $14, 267, 217

This review is brought to you in collaboration with Dio and Holy Diver. So, seeing as how I was still reviewing movies for December nearly half way through January, I've decided to do a bumper edition for the review of the month and put the two together. As such, though it's not set in stone, what I might do is a top five and bottom five review for that, after, of course, all the many many movies I've got to see with this being mad Oscar season and all. In that regard, I've also been working on both my best and the worst of 2013 and this year's inductees into my hall of fame, so, for all the latest and greatest in the movies, keep your eyes posted!

Today's movie up for review is Mandela: Long Walk To Freedom, a biopic that takes it's base from the 1995 book of the same name by the recently deceased anti-apartheid revolutionary and former South African President Nelson Mandela. Since the man's death last month, there has been an outcry of support and tributes from various people, but call a cynic, personally I am worried that people are starting to adopt Mandela as a token political icon, the way that loads of people wear Che Guevara t-shirts without knowing what the guy was all about. As such, though Mandela's death around the time of the release of the biopic is purely coincidental (this was released the week before his death, for those who want to make any tenuous links), at this time, I feel it to be crucial that we get a well-rounded, definitive film about Mandela's life. Directed by Justin Chadwick, who has worked on television projects since the early 90's such as Bleak House and on two previous pictures, The Other Boleyn Girl and The First Grader, Mandela stars Idris Elba of Luther fame in the title role over the course of fifty-two years, from 1942 to 1994, as the film chronicles much of Mandela's life. Got it? Good!

Starting with the good, it's an undeniably large pair of shoes to fill, but Idris Elba gives a truly transcendent performance in the title role. Obviously, in terms of physical stature, Elba is a bigger man than Mandela, but he uses his size to fill a space the way the real Mandela's presence obviously could, and more importantly he captures the spirit of the man. Going past mere impersonation (which he does note-perfectly, incidentally) and getting the voice down on tape, Elba does just meld into the part, and it's obvious that he spent a lot of time and effort making this performance one of real complexity. Furthermore, although I'm sure the make-up had a part in this, Elba ages wonderfully over the course of the film, fundamentally playing the same man, but giving him little subtle changes over the course of time. The film may have it's faults (more of which in due time), but of all the things that are brought to the table, Elba's performance deserves due praise. Also, we have a terrific supporting role from Naomi Harris, who plays his second wife Winnie Mandela. In the past, there have been attempts to capture Winnie's story, but interestingly, in this movie about her late husband, Harris gives us the best Winnie Mandela to date. Even though I have seen her in numerous films over the years, I didn't recognise her, for she plays the part of the firecracker and high-spirited Winnie so well. She is more than able to stand up to Elba's powerful performance, and that in itself is quite worthy of merit without the extra mile too goes. As I've mentioned already, the make-up/hair departments have done a fine job in making the characters, particularly that of Mandela, age well. This isn't just some hamburger/play-do job that you sometimes get on these big movies that span a long period of time, it is minimal and appropriate to both the actor playing the part and the timescale of the story. Never once did I go, "hmm, well that's some tacky make-up," it all looked legitimate. Finally (and this is a long finally!), the overall scale of the production is something to be behold. The production design and the costumes over the course of the fifty year span of the film consistently fit the period, and the staging of the various mass gatherings that are reenacted for the film are brilliantly choreographed. This isn't a special-effects movie, and in no right world should it be, but we do feel the genuine size of the production and go "cor, blimey," that is breathtaking. Furthermore, this is one of those movies that wisely ensures we can see every bit of it, and it is beautifully shot and edited by Low Crawley and Rick Russell, who respectively do their earnest to held play their part in telling the story. I can't deny the fact that this is a movie which, at best is a highly impressive picture, and I'm sure that it will be very affecting for audiences who do see it. Indeed, at the screening I attended with my folks at the Queens Film Theatre, people were crying, my mother and sister both loved it and it was given a round of applause upon finishing, which is something most pictures do not get on these isles (it's more an American tradition, definitely, whereas ours is usually pursed lips!). I too was impressed by the picture and thus my review will be a positive one.

However, despite these things that I liked about Mandela and that it is an undeniably impressive movie, there are still a number of problems which deny it from being a truly great film. As I mentioned in the contextual/synopsis paragraph, now is the time I feel it is vital for a truly well-rounded depiction of Mandela's story, and while we have a game performance from Idris Elba, the overall movie is still lacking that extra push it needs. The central problem of the film is the fact that in every department it is so concerned with portraying a great man that it often looks past any other side of the story. I would personally describe the film as having 'politically correct politics,' in that it posits challenging issues, but never genuinely confronts them. Not once was there any explicit act of racism (the n-word is noticeably absent) or violence that lingers on the consequences of such misdeeds, the film remaining in this constant stasis of neutrality. The script is the thing affected most by this. Though Elba portrays him brilliantly, the weaknesses of Mandela himself are never fully explored. Extra-marital affairs take up about thirty seconds of screen time, and at about ten minutes, his first marriage to Evelyn Mase has to be the quickest thirteen years I've ever witnessed. Not once are we let into Mandela, who even at the learning of his son's death, is shown to be impenetrable and strong. At one point, Mandela shows up at a local cinema (a pet peeve, I for the most part loath that 'movie within a movie' reflexivity gimmick), interrupting the movie and delivering a protest speech, and the whole audience is up in arms, on their feet chanting in unison their support. Maybe this is the inner cynic, but I think if political agitators were to do that in the middle of a movie, most people would tell them to sit down and shut up, regardless of what they say. I thought about this, going "would I do that if it was David Bowie?," and while my answer was "he'd be too modest to do that," I concluded that I would most definitely. The score too by Alex Heffes works in this way. It's one of those Emotional Heartstrings Orchestra score's that say to your subconscious "isn't this grand and glorious, how courageous, how wonderful, how rabble-rousing," but thankfully, although I'm hardly a wizard, I know when I can see through a spell that is being poorly cast. I've often compared the art of cinema to magic, for though I'm in a position where I can see the illusion(s), if it is done well, I can still let myself go and enjoy it. This score however doesn't do it for me. Finally, though he does well for the most part as a director, Chadwick too seems to be unable to see past the two-dimensionality of their story. He's the puppet-master here, and as such he seems content to let this version of Mandela pass for the real thing. It's doubtless praiseworthy and I feel good about it, but the movie is at worst highly propagandistic, especially when you've got rabble-rousing speeches and a score along the side like something out of Independence Day going on (sorry, Bill Pullman). When I call a movie propagandistic, that's not just high-fallutin rhetoric, one of the specialist genres is Soviet Propaganda films from the 1920s-1950s, so believe me when I say it!

Speaking of high-fallutin rhetoric, although I'm not exactly corroborating myself, I see no need to do so, and more importantly, though I do see this as propagandistic, two-dimensional, relatively unoriginal, full of politically correct politics and indeed not the definitive article on Nelson Mandela the man, I still feel largely positive about the film. Idris Elba is transcendent in the lead role, and Naomi Harris too is a standout as Winnie Mandela. Also, the make-up/hair departments do a subtle, minimalist job in appropriately ageing these people over a long period of time. Finally, as a whole the production is splendid, that of real scale and scope, shot and edited well, capturing if not the definitive real article that we need, then at least a fragment of the spirit's essence. 

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 6.7/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Stoked, likesay (one of the quickest reviews I've done in a while. There's a lot to say about this movie, whether you like it or not)

Mandela: Long Walk To Freedom Trailer

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - 47 Ronin

Directed by: Carl Erick Rinsch

Produced by: Pamela Abdy

Eric McLeod

Screenplay by: Chris Morgan

Hossein Amini

Story by: Chris Morgan

Walter Hamada

Starring: Keanu Reeves

Hiroyuki Sanada

Tadanobu Asano

Rinko Kikuchi

Kou Shibasaki

Jin Akanishi

Min Tanaka

Music by: Ilan Eshkeri

Cinematography by: John Mathieson

Editing by: Craig Wood

Studio(s): H2F Entertainment

Mid Atlantic Films

Moving Picture Company

Stuber Productions

Distributed by: Universal Pictures

Release date(s): December 6, 2013 (Japan)

December 25, 2013 (United States)

December 26, 2013 (United Kingdom and Hungary)

Running time: 119 minutes

Country(s): United States

United Kingdom

Hungary

Language(s): English

Japanese

Production budget: $175 million

Box-office revenue (as of publication): $86, 099, 885

This review is brought to you in collaboration with Daft Punk and Random Access Memories. I finally picked the album up for £4 earlier in the week and seeing as how I have a longer shift working corporate hospitality in the evening, I'm just gonna crash and listen to this. I've been a fan of Daft Punk for many years, with Discovery being one of my favourite albums, and seeing as how Get Lucky was effectively the song of the summer in 2013, I figured it'd be timely to listen to it. So, for all the latest and greatest in movies (any album accompaniment suggestions would be helpful), keep your eyes posted!

Today's movie up for review is 47 Ronin, an American samurai action fantasy starring Keanu Reeves. It is the latest in the line of Chushingura, presenting a fictional account of the historical incident at the start of the 18th century involving the Forty-seven ronin taking revenge for their master's death, and as a result of committing murder, the group were forced to commit seppuku, and is considered one of the great tales of Japanese legend and the most famous example of the bushido code of honour. This adaptation itself became a movie of some note before it was even released. Originally meant to be released on November 21, 2012, it pushed back to February 8, 2013 and then December 25, 2013, firstly because of work needed on 3D visual effects, and secondly because of reshoots and post-production. The film has, in it's relatively short release window, become noted for being a major box-office flop, after grossing less than $100 million off of its $175 million budget, and was savaged by critics, with sentiments such as that of the Village Voice's Alan Schersuhl, who described the film as "Solemn as a funeral march," being near enough the general consensus. Aside from that context, I will admit to going into the film with an open mind, so don't just think I'm gonna fall in line. Plot synopsis goes that outcast Kai (Keanu Reeves), the orphaned son of a Japanese peasant woman and British sailor, is in love with Mika (Kou Shibasaki), a childhood friend and daughter of Lord Asano (Min Tanaka), the master of a group of samurai. Lord Kira (Tadanobu Asano), who is Asano's rival, while the two jockey for the support of the Shogun, orchestrates a plot with the sorceress Mizuki (Rinko Kikuchi) which sees Asano being manipulated into attacking Kira, which sees him committing seppuku, the banishment of his samurai, who become wandering ronin, and Mika is forced into an engagement with Kira as penance for her father's supposed misdeeds. A year later, Oishi (Hiroyuki Sanada), a former samurai under Asano, after being released from imprisonment, convinces Kai to leave the slave traders who engaging in underground fighting for, and with himself as leader, reforms the forty-seven ronin of the title into a plot of revenge against Kira. Got it? Good!

So, starting with the good, and indeed there is a fair amount of good about 47 Ronin, contrary to the philandering of many critics, who, with Oscar season being here, are probably relishing the opportunity for a whipping boy in between their gross rhetoric of quotes that'll get them quoted prominently on posters and advertisements. The production of the mise-en-scene on the film is really strong. At no point does this not look (appropriately) like a period film. There must have been a lot of work that went into the physical sets, the props and the costumes. Also, though it was shot between locations like Budapest and lots on Shepperton Studios, it never feels like a big studio lot film. I know I'm rather biased in this regard, but I always respect it whenever there is this physical spectacle to enjoy. Speaking of spectacle, though I suspect visual effects may have played a part, this is a big film with big scope, with lots of extras and things going on in the background to help create the illusion. As such, when we see these great big action sequences, they are enjoyable, fun to watch, and feel like small pieces in a larger puzzle. It's also rather well shot by cinematographer John Mathieson, who know a thing or two about how shoot big-budget action films, as we've seen on his work with Ridley Scott (Gladiator, Kingdom Of Heaven) and on the likes of X-Men: First Class. Finally, although he regularly takes a critical flogging, I liked Keanu Reeves' acting and his character. He does a good and convincing job, in light of the abuse the character takes from others around him, of playing a humble and modest man.

Now, while there were things that I liked about 47 Ronin, I still have to say that my opinion is negative than positive. I'll start with the script, because that is the base from which all of the other problems with the film emerge. It's a big, two hour epic film, and the script, by Chris Morgan and Hossein Amini, is written as such. Both seem to have been brought in for their respective backgrounds in scribing action films and dramas, but the two styles never really meld properly. On the one hand, you've got this striving towards a sort-of Lord Of The Rings-style grandeur in the action, and on the other a passionate love story. Like Oblivion, though more so, it takes from the screenplay textbook of having a small plot and a big plot operating in cohesion, though here it does not work. Also, there is nary a pinch of salt taken with the film, and in striving to be a big glorious epic, the screenwriters have took the writing of the dialogue and plot too seriously. The entire first act (which lasts about forty-five minutes) could have been compressed to a five-ten minute prologue, and because of the grand nature of the piece, the actors, who in fairness should have known better, overact to the nth degree. Reeves actually manages to escape this, but the same cannot be said for the rest of the cast. You have an international cast of highly talented actors from Japan, including Hiroyuki Sanada, Kou Shibasaki, Rinko Kikuchi and Tadanodu Asano, one of the finest actors of the past fifteen years, and all of them are, well, rubbish. Every line of dialogue comes across as forced and stilted. If this were a silent movie set, I could just imagine the director saying such rubbish as "More emotion, more passion, blah, blah, blah," to encourage them. I'm sorry, I like all of them, but these lines are delivered with such an air of self-importance and profundity that it becomes almost parodic, and I'm looked at them in the same way the audience in the same way the audience looked at Don Lockwood's "I love you, I love you, I love you" in The Dueling Cavalier's test screening, except it is so humourless and unfunny that it acts it strangely becomes noxious towards any sort of irony that may be derived from it. Furthermore, there's a score here as well by Ilan Eshkeri that plays right along those lines of posterity. It's one of those big Emotional Heartstrings Orchestra works that we've heard hundred of times in so many different variations that all see to ironically sound the same, telling me when I should crying, and no, I'm not going to cry, because that character that died there have about three or four lines at the most to establish himself and despite being played by a rather large actor, his characterisation is thin and I just don't care, sorry Ilan, you're just not going to sell me on this dribblesome boohick. Near the end of the movie, I won't lie, I did feel myself starting to drift off, and when you have a guy who grew up watching martial arts movies, loves the jidaigeki/chanbara genres and digs the central themes of honour, courage, loyalty and respect, falling asleep, that ain't a good thing at all!

47 Ronin is the kind of movie I really should like. Indeed, it has martial-arts, fantasy, a fine international cast, and is not without merit, for the overall production of the mise-en-scene is well established, the action sequences are good, it's shot with elegance by John Mathieson and Keanu Reeves is suitably understated in his part. However, the central problem with the film emerges from the fact that it is so self-important that it would be parodic if it wasn't so dull at the same time. The script does that textbook screenplay thing of small story/romance/drama mixed in with big story/action/adventure and they don't meld properly, and the first act could have been compressed to about five minutes in a prologue. Furthermore, the actors are as complicit in this, because every line is delivered with such overacted profundity that it sounds like The Dueling Cavalier and the score also plays into this, in that it does the whole Emotional Heartstrings Orchestra schtick of trying to prod us into certain emotional reactions, and I'm just not being sold over on it. Given how much time and effort went into this, and that Kurosawa's Ran was made on a $12 million budget, and Takashi Miike's recent 13 Assassins made for half that, you would think with $175 million we would have something more than a relatively disposable and most unremarkable picture that failed to genuinely engage me. 

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 3.9/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Cool (day off, cup of tea, boo yeah!)

47 Ronin Trailer   

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Oblivion

Directed by: Joseph Kosinski

Produced by: Joseph Kosinski

Peter Chernin

Dylan Clark

Barry Levine

Duncan Henderson

Screenplay by: Joseph Kosinski

Michael DeBruyn

Karl Gajdusek

Story by: Joseph Kosinski

Based on: Oblivion by Joseph Kosinski

Starring: Tom Cruise

Olga Kurlyenko

Andrea Riseborough

Morgan Freeman

Nikolaj Coster-Waldau

Melissa Leo

Music by: M83

Cinematography by: Claudio Miranda

Editing by: Richard Francis-Bruce

Studio(s): Relativity Media

Chernin Entertainment

Monolith Pictures

Radical Studios

Distributed by: Universal Pictures

Release date(s): April 10, 2013 (United Kingdom)

April 19, 2013 (United States)

Running time: 124 minutes

Country: United States

Language: English

Production budget: $120 million

Box-office revenue (as of publication): $286, 168, 572

Alrighty, just so you know (unless unfortunate circumstances intervene, heaven forefend!) this is going to be a proper review. A couple of days ago, I completed a review for Texas Chainsaw, and the fact is is that I went off my rocker when Blogger had a glitch, and instead of writing a review, I proceeded to use the thing as a vent for me to rant and rave. While I do not apologise for my complete and utter lack of professionalism in that regard, I do however seek to rectify this lack of a review for Texas Chainsaw, and though it is a movie I don't have any particular passion or inclination to want to review, that is what a critic is supposed to do! With all of the other crap going on, what it being Oscar season and that I'm cramming a lot in to catch up with the year of 2013, there'll be a lot going on, so, as ever, keep your eyes posted!

Today's movie for review is the science fiction film Oblivion. A big-budgeted ($120 million), post-apocalyptic epic, the movie didn't tank at the box-office, but certainly under-performed, and it's critical reception has been mixed at best. That said, you want to have a look at a review from someone who thinks very highly of it, go no further than my good friend at Danland Movies, who considers one of the best films of the year, and whose review I will put a link to at the bottom of this one. The film is directed by Joseph Kosinski, based on an unpublished graphic novel by himself and Arvid Nelson, which he now describes as merely "a stage in the project." Quick synopsis, minus spoilers of course (which Universal have done a great job of concealing); the year is 2077, and during a war with alien invaders known as the Scavengers, though the war was won, the Scav's destroyed the Moon, causing an array of natural disasters, and as a defence measure, nuclear warheads were detonated on Earth to cull their invasion, but it left the planet more or less uninhabitable. On Tower 49, Tech 49 Jack Harper (Tom Cruise) and his parter/lover Victoria 'Vika' Olsen (Andrea Riseborough) work as a team that keeps in operation the drones that defend the planet's fusion power stations. However, things are shaken and go awry when Jack rescues a woman (Olga Kurylenko) from a pre-invasion spacecraft that has crash-landed on Earth and appears to be the same woman who has been haunting his dreams of a better world. Comprende? Good!

To start with the good, the principal actors here are uniformly on fine form. Tom Cruise is great in the lead role as Jack Harper. It's interesting that over the years (and when I say years, I mean, like, thirty), Cruise has played a sort-of ever evolving everyman; he just has this sort of quality in his acting which ensures that he is the most subtle of screen chameleons, able to tweak his performances around whatever part he is playing. His Jack Harper is a character that suffers from an ennui, searching for a meaning in his life, and as the film progresses and it enters territory of an at times rather existential nature, Cruise steps up to the plate in a performance wrought with humanity and emotion. Although I'm sure there have been plenty of articles trying to link the movie to Scientology (those who slander Scientology like that should shut up, because if the same things were to be said about Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc., they would be considered intolerant bigoted anti-theists!), but whether you agree with Cruise's personal life or not, he's still one of the finest actors of this or any generation. There are also three other strong performances in supporting roles. I was once again impressed with Andrea Riseborough's acting talents in her performance as Vika. Someone who just goes from strength to strength, despite the fact that Vika is in many ways the third leg plot wise amongst the characters, it doesn't become a rooting contest between her and Kurylenko. Even though her character is a company woman, if you will, we can feel Vika's pain as she does these things, and it is Riseborough who ensures that this doesn't just become a disposable character. Speaking of Kurylenko, she too gives a good performance. Like that of Riseborough, her character could have been disposable female material (as unfortunately, I feel that a lot of writers tend to neglect good female roles), but she does inject a level of passion into the role. Finally on the acting front, the mighty Morgan Freeman, who could make The Yellow Pages sound like something of great profundity, shows up and brings the movie some real gravitas. If anyone is there to tell the protagonist that everything surrounding him is based on fabrication, then Freeman's the man to do it convincingly. To say other good things about Oblivion, I have to address the overall mise-en-scene, which is one of the most beautifully realised worlds I have seen in a film from 2013. It is a big-budgeted movie, but unlike many other movies with that amount of dollar in it, Oblivion is a movie made by people who respect the level of craft and dedication all involved, and it's there onscreen. Although there aren't a huge amount of physical sets, which are wonderfully designed, we get a sense of the sheer vastness and scale of the movie through the intelligent use of immersive visual effects, which are more seamless and work in cohesion with the 'real' design work. From a technical standpoint it's on the a-game. Claudio Miranda, who won an Oscar last year his work on Ang Lee's Life Of Pi, does a lot to make the movie look as good as possible, giving it a really beautiful sheen and crisp quality. Also, Richard Francis-Bruce is an editor with a great understanding of his craft, and Oblivion displays, at its best moments, a true sense of pace and rhythm to the way it moves. The action scenes in the movie, though largely bloodless, are highly intense thanks to Francis-Bruce' work. The original score too by M83 is something noteworthy. Though as a band their aesthetic is oftentimes to work with electronic instruments, they take to traditional film scoring rather well. The score is full of little things operating both as a part of the larger piece and also of their own accord, certain individual instruments (a synthesiser melody, the depth of the reverb off of the drum beats) doing their thing, and yet there is a merging that ensures that it is all part of the same atmosphere. More musicians outside of the schools of traditional film composition should be involved in film scoring, and M83's work is proof of that. Finally (on the good front), whereas with Tron: Legacy he was more or less directing Steve Lisberger's creations, here he is directing his own and establishes himself as someone to watch. With all the contingent elements going on here, Oblivion could have been a disaster that destroyed his young and promising career, but I think he mostly succeeds here. It's directed with confidence and precision, and at it's best moments, Oblivion had me thinking that this was something very Phil Dickian (to coin a phrase), good old paranoid science-fiction. It's nice to see that there are filmmakers out there willing to do something with science-fiction films the likes of THX 1138, Conquest Of The Planet Of The Apes, Silent Running and Westworld, and while not perfect, Oblivion is a solid exercise that keeps up that tradition.

As you've gathered from that, I had a lot of good things to say about Oblivion, and indeed, I feel that many critics will revise their opinions on this movie as the years go by. However, it reminds me in a way of Danny Boyle's Sunshine, in that there is so much good going on here that it's a shame to have to point out flaws, but like that film it is not without them. I know it's an easy (and oftentimes my usual) target when picking at a movie, but the script for Oblivion has a number of issues. Written by Kosinski, Karl Gajdusek and Michael Arndt (as Michael DeBruyn), while the two have a strong base, it does at times feel like a short movie stretched out into a two-hour feature film. Most of the time I was able to buy it, but as a whole it is way too long. One of the most refreshing things about Gravity was the ninety-minute running time, which, while still being by all means an epic film, was watertight to the gills and had no space to move. With this film, my brain did tend to do a fair amount of wandering, not really focusing on the picture, not just because of the running time, but also because despite all it's beauty and splendour, the plot had some predictable elements. Please tell me you didn't see where this thing was going a mile off when Freeman shows up and delivers his monologue(s) to Cruise, and the plot becomes the plots, with the core story being surrounded by a wider picture, which is just textbook screenwriting that could have a title like Love And Death In The French Revolution. Joking aside, it's a shame that it boils down to that, because for all the things that went well with it, I still think Oblivion could have been trimmed to under a hundred minutes and had a bit of thinning out on the story, which got too big for it's boots.

Well, I may have skew-wiffed my review of Texas Chainsaw, but I think I pulled it back on this one. Oblivion is one of those movies that does beg to be seen, whether you like it or not, because it's something that you will come out feeling strongly about, be your opinion positive, negative or somewhere in-between. While I had my problems with the movie regarding the script/story being too big for it's own good and the overlong running time (which make me genuinely sad to say deny it from being a great movie in my eyes), Oblivion is still in many ways a remarkable film. The production value and scale of the mise-en-scene is incredible, beautifully realised by Joe Kosinski, who establishes himself as a legitimate director to watch, while the score by M83 is a fine hybrid that does give it a unique sense of atmosphere. Technically, it's outstanding and it's topped off by a quartet of great performances, particularly that of Andrea Riseborough, who will be a major player over the next ten years, and leading man Tom Cruise, who is just terrific in another of his many fine career performances.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 7.7/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Stoked (I was meant to be stoked with my last review, but no I'm stoked because I'm in full beast mode review wise!)

Oblivion Trailer

Danland Movies' Review Of Oblivion

The Thin White Dude's 'Reviews' - Texas Chainsaw (Message to Blogger!)

Aloha, told you I'd be back in action. I'm looking forward for a change to what I call the annual cram, shoving in as many movies as possible for the last hurdle come Oscar season. The ones I can guarantee for this upcoming cram are Stoker, Oblivion and A Hijacking, and while I'd like to guarantee some more, everything is up in the air, as they say. So, for all the latest and greatest from the lousiest, laziest and rushed film critic of them all, keep your eyes posted!

Today's movie up for review is Texas Chainsaw, which was released in the theatres (with a big marketing campaign behind it) as Texas Chainsaw 3D. To give us a bit of history here, I love the 1974 original, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, which is one of the most visceral horror movies of all time, with a real verite/guerilla film aesthetic to it that is still jarring to this day. I only recently re-watched the movie, which reminded me just how shocking and mind-blowing cinema can be. This was followed twelve years later by Tobe Hooper's own The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, which turned the story more in the direction of black comedy. Two other sequels, Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III from New Line Cinema, attempting to reboot the franchise with Leatherface at the forefront a la Freddy, Jason, Michael Myers, and Columbia's Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation, which failed in it's own attempt to reboot the franchise. In 2003, Michael Bay's Platinum Dunes released a remake of the original under the same name, the first of his many financially profitable horror remakes, along with a 2006 prequel, with the suffix, The Beginning, and from here, after Brad Fuller and Andrew Form announced there would not be a third Dunes Chainsaw, with Twisted Pictures as the major producing studio, Lionsgate snapped up the rights to put out their own take. So plot synopsis for this take, eh? Well, basically what Texas Chainsaw does it disregards all the sequels/prequels/reboots in the franchise and takes up the story immediately after the events of the original film. The residents of Newt, Texas, much to the chagrin of local law enforcement, organise a lynch mob to wipe out the Sawyer family after a young girl (Sally Hardesty) escapes their clutches. Their home is burnt down and the family is presumed dead, however, a child is found on the scene and adopted by two of the townspeople. Decades later, Heather Miller (Alexandra Daddario) is notified that her grandmother has passed away, and that her adoptive parents have been keeping a secret regarding her upbringing. She, her boyfriend and two others, along with a hitchhiker, head to Newt to collect the inheritance, which is shown to be a big, empty house, which isn't as empty as presumed as Leatherface is living downstairs in the locked basement. Shall we dance?

This is where all semblance of a legitimate review ends, and that is not due to the quality of the movie (it's rubbish anyway), but rather because I had already completed my review, but due to the wonders of technology it got wiped in the process of uploading the poster image for the movie, as I do for all of my review. Much as I'd like to say I'm absolutely dedicated to my craft to the point where I'd re-write my whole review, frankly I'm too cross to even comprehend doing such a thing. It's very annoying when you spend the guts of two hours writing a review, only for your hard work to be destroyed by some vile technical glitch involving the picture uploader. The only reason those two paragraphs exist, which have no weight or meaning whatsoever no that those proceeding them are nonexistent, is because I had saved them from a previous draft and was able to ensure that they were able to be transferred, so that y'all would have a gist of where I might be going with this. Regardless of what you work as, what medium you work in, whether you work with words, work with your hands, work with your head, whatever, if you are someone like me who makes an effort and gives a damn about what they do, unlike so many other lackadaisical, lazy swines who swoon in and out of the workplace, get fired and picked up again because of who they know and know whose ass to kiss, it can be annoying when despite the fact you put your whole, unadulterated, incontrovertible, absolute heart and soul into this, your work is lost or you lose work due to circumstances outside of your control. Human error, including my own, I can take, but when it comes down to technical errors, I've got a message for Blogger: make an effort in your work to ensure that things like this do not happen because I was to approach my work the way you do yours, I wouldn't be reviewing movies with any sort of credence, I'd just be using this as a vent for all of my complexes and insecurities in unconstructed rants on a far more regular occurrence!

So, yes, this in no way resembles anything the review I did have on the way. When you work in the arts (and, yes, disagree with me all you want, criticism is an art in and of itself), there are times when you have to admit that the essence of something is lost, and that's what happened with my review. I never had any of these issues with pen and paper, which is where all my poetry is! So, here's my rating for Texas Chainsaw, and hopefully (heaven forefend!) you won't have to be subjected to many, if any, more of these rants!

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 3.6/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Grr (I was stoked 'til this happened!)

P.S. If anyone wants my genuine opines on Texas Chainsaw, make a comment or send me an e-mail on the matter!

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Frozen

Directed by: Chris Buck

Jennifer Lee

Produced by: Peter Del Vecho

Screenplay by: Jennifer Lee

Story by: Chris Buck

Jennifer Lee

Shane Morris

Based on: The Snow Queen by Hans Christian Anderson

Starring: Kristen Bell

Idina Menzel

Jonathan Groff

Josh Gad

Santino Fontana

Music by: Christophe Beck

Editing by: Jeff Draheim

Studio(s): Walt Disney Pictures

Walt Disney Animation Studios

Distributed by: Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures

Release date(s): November 27, 2013 (United States)

December 6, 2013 (United Kingdom)

Running time: 108 minutes

Country: United States

Language: English

Production budget: $150 million

Box-office revenue (as of publication): $544, 416, 204

I'm not one for the sappy celebratory tone or general gushiness, but I mean it when I say Happy New Year, not just for all of you reading this blog, but for myself, so yeah, if I'm gonna be celebratory, it may as well be self-celebratory. Kidding aside, I've been through a lot over the past three or four years, and evolved as a human being in so many different ways that I didn't think possible, and frankly I feel as confident and as good about myself as I have in perhaps my entire life. This self-satisfaction is going to culminate this year in a number of mediums, and while I hate to overhype, this is gonna be the year things start happening, so, Happy New Year, and keep your eyes posted!

Today's movie for review is Frozen, the fifty-third release in the Walt Disney Animated Classics line from Walt Disney Animation Studios. A computer-animated musical fantasy loosely based on the Hans Christian Anderson fairy tale The Snow Queen, Frozen was released to great critical acclaim, with some believing it to be the best Disney musical release since the '89-'99 Renaissance of Disney, which saw the arrival of such canonical titles as The Little Mermaid, Beauty And The Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King. For those of you who don't know, I love Disney and grew up on an appetite on films from that Renaissance and many other classics such as Snow White, Bambi, Dumbo, Sleeping Beauty, The Jungle Book etc (with unofficial helpings of the first and second Terminator films, Rocky, Rambo, RoboCop...), and to this day can still sit and watch them with a great deal of pleasure. Furthermore, the significant box-office revenue (over $500 million as it stands), while perhaps a sign of Disney's general monopoly of the North American animated scene, shows, along with last year's Les Miserables, that there is certainly a market for musicals and that there should be more of them, as opposed to it being an event any time one of them is released. Directed by Chris Buck (longtime animator/designer/director for Disney) and Jennifer Lee (a first time director, first female to ever direct a Disney animated film, also the principal screenwriter), Frozen tells the story of two princesses, one of whom, Elsa (Idina Menzel), has the ability to manipulation ice and the cold, but after a disastrous coronation, during which Elsa reveals her powers, she estranges herself from her kingdom of Arendelle. The second of these princesses, Anna (Kristen Bell), sets off with a mountain man who sells ice, Kristoff (Jonathan Groff), to find her sister and stop the eternal winter she has inadvertently unleashed upon her kingdom. Got it? Good!

To start with the good, Frozen is a beautifully animated movie. From my experience and knowledge regarding the medium, snow is one of the most complicated things to render in computer animation, and the work here is flawless. When we watch the characters run through or fall into the snow, the appropriate shapes form, and the way that the snow works it's way around the environment during the eternal winters sequences is frankly incredible. Also, the craft of the locations such as the castle of Arendelle and the ice castle are of a high standard, while the design of the characters is expressive and appropriate. You have the juxtaposition of the two princesses, one of whom is a blonde wearing gloves to control her powers, while the other is a redhead with a grey streak from a childhood accident involving these powers. Furthermore, these princesses are not just foils for their male counterparts, but are strong, pro-active women more than capable of making their own decisions and picking up the slack. Speaking of the design, but also the script, for a change the comic relief in an animated movie is just that, comic, Sven the reindeer and Olof the snowman being responsible for many genuinely hilarious moments. The dialogue is sharp and full of little double entendres, making for some of the funniest things I've seen in a film this year, and the character's are deftly devised. When you get strong characters and dialogue together, it's a good thing. The principal voice cast are on real form as well. Kristen Bell and Idina Menzel are both engaging and sympathetic in their parts as the two princesses, and it is both through the script and their performances that we are able to develop a rapport with these characters. Also, as mentioned, I loved the character of Olof the snowman, and Josh Gad does a wonderful job that is toned just right. Olof is a character that could have been overdone and ended up annoying like Eddie Murphy's Donkey in the later Shrek incarnations, but instead he is humorous, charming and responsible for some of the film's best moments. You can feel the enthusiasm Olof has to see a summer through Gad's enthusiasm in the song In Summer, and this has a little twist considering we all know that the poor bugger would be doomed to melt in such conditions. On hand to write the film's songs and musical score, we have Christophe Beck in the traditional film composition role, someone whose work normally gets on my nerves, but as far musicals go, as we have seen with 2012's The Muppets, he has a penchant for this genre, and ten original songs written by husband-wife duo Kristen Anderson-Lopez and Robert Lopez. These songs represent as a collection arguably the best written for a Disney musical since The Lion King. Full of memorable tracks such as Do You Want Build A Snowman?, For The First Time In Forever, and the highlight of the movie, Let It Go, performed with such magnanimity and gusto by Idina Menzel (who was wonderful as Elphaba in the original Broadway production of Wicked), Frozen's aural landscape with the Lopez' and Beck is among the most refreshing and invigorating in recent memory.

Here's the thing though, despite the fact that there were a lot of good things going for Frozen, there was a rather large flaw that was prevalent throughout the piece, and that was the script by Jennifer Lee. Yes, the dialogue is humorous, yes, the songs are terrific, but the script itself is poorly padded and shows itself to be simplistic in light of all the other great things going on. For all of the subversion of conventions which many critics have shed light upon, it is still fundamentally a rather conventional Disney musical. The story of the princesses looking for true love, resplendent with the comic fodder of Kristoff, Sven the reindeer and Olof the snowman, however charming, is nothing we haven't really seen before. Also, apart from one little deviation, the story moves in rather predictable ways, each of the plot points hitting the spots that many others have before. Don't get me wrong, Frozen is still an enjoyable movie, but you do have to take it with a pinch of salt to really go with it, whereas I was distracted by a bald man's phone shining off his head as he played a game while he used The Strand cinema to babysit his children.

Nevertheless, while it does have a script with a structure that could have been churned out on a conveyer belt from the Disney factory, Frozen is still a very good, very enjoyable, very entertaining film. It's a beautifully rendered animation, especially considering how hard it is to do snow in computer animation, the primary voice cast are all on fine form, the dialogue, particularly with the comic relief in Olof the snowman, is sharp and witty. Finally, what has gotten Frozen its (perhaps ironically) warm reception is the aural landscape, with a score by Christophe Beck and the Lopez' crafting ten songs, which in terms of Disney musicals, is the best since The Lion King. The fact that so many people have flocked to see Frozen shows that, for all its flaws, there is still a feasible market for musicals in contemporary cinema.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 7.8/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Half asleep (don't know how, managed to sleep in)

Frozen Trailer

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - The Starving Games

Directed by: Jason Friedberg

Aaron Seltzer

Produced by: Peter Safran

Screenplay by: Jason Friedberg

Aaron Seltzer

Starring: Maiara Walsh

Cody Christian

Brant Dougherty

Diedrich Bader

Music by: Timothy Wynn

Cinematography by: Shawn Maurer

Studio(s): The Safran Company

Louisiana Production Consultants

Distributed by: Ketchup Entertainment (United States)

Signature Entertainment (United Kingdom)

Release date(s): November 8, 2013 (United States, limited release)

November 11, 2013 (United Kingdom, straight-to-DVD)

 Running time: 83 minutes

Country: United States

Language: English

Production budget: $4, 500, 000

Box-office revenue (as of publication): (N/A)

Well, as you can tell (maybe you can't) I've been neglecting the blog over the past couple of weeks. Basically, it was a little thing called Christmas, which normally isn't really that much of a big deal for me, but I have had some work interspersed with socialising with all of my friends, a number of whom have come home from university's abroad, and had a good bit of family time, so, much as I love doing this, frankly I was happy to take the couple weeks off. However, here I am, and in my absence I have been working on a number of different wee projects (more of which in due time), so for all the latest and greatest in movies, along with the odd update about completely irrelevant topics, keep your eyes posted!

Today's movie up for review is The Starving Games, which, in case you haven't guessed, is a parody film of The Hunger Games, beginning life as a trilogy of novels by Suzanne Collins and has spawned into a hit franchise with two high-grossing films (neither of which I have seen) starring Jennifer Lawrence in the role of Katniss Everdeen. Well, as you know, in their great omnipotence, nothing misses the gaze of the cultural trailblazers that are Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer, who thought it would be funny to release their five dimes. For those of you who don't know, I have a history with Friedberg and Seltzer to say the least, so I'll just give you a little recap. After a couple of bad movies, the two went on to make Meet The Spartans, a movie that is extraordinarily bad that it really has to be seen in order to gauge just how rubbish it is. Then they made Vampires Suck which, aside from a genuinely spot-on Kristen Stewart-impersonation by Jenn Proske, is another horrendous movie. Vampires Suck got the dubious honour of joining hands with the likes of Deja Vu, Prom Night and Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen (let us never mention that movie again, again!) as winners of the prestigious Thin White Dude Award for Worst Film of the Year. It's also responsible for one of my critical claims to fame, where after posting my review on their Facebook page, I received a number of angry e-mails along the lines of "How dare you such things about our movie?" This massively over-inflated, pompous and self-righteous attitude, led my to the Dick Dastardly-esque manoeuvre, in my great maturity, of mass-spamming said Facebook page and received more angry notifications from Zuckerberg Inc., telling me I was temporarily barred from posting after "abuse" had been reported and that if I continued I would be removed from Facebook. Not that I'm intimidated by such matters (indeed, they usually lead me to be more creative), but a large part of my fan-base comes from Facebook, so for that reason I stopped. Still, doesn't stop me from being angry! So, quick synopsis here goes that Kantmiss Evershot (Maiara Walsh), in order to save her sister from selection volunteers to participate in The Starving Games, a gladiatorial battle to the death amongst young people for the grand prize of an old ham, a coupon for a foot-long Subway (SUBWAY! SUBWAY! SUBWAY!) and partially eaten pickle. Look, I could put a bit more effort into a more detailed synopsis, but really this just isn't worth either that or the veil of objectivity.

To start with the good, of which there isn't much admittedly, I have to say that Maiara Walsh does put in a decent performance as Kantmiss Evershot. While much of the acting is bad, she at least, despite the script, displays some sort of awareness about comic timing, and perhaps with a better movie, there could be a chance for her to shine. The only other good thing to say about this movie, and it's not exactly a positive but I'll use it to fill up space is the fact there is no major studios backing this film. It seems that finally, after all these years of having to endure Friedberg and Seltzer stinking up our cinemas, everyone has finally had enough of these two cretins. I can imagine these two pitching this film to Regency, Lionsgate and 20th Century Fox (their regular distributor for many a year), thinking this is oh so hilarious, and finally they've all had the good sense to put their foot down and said "no!" Emphatically "no," they might some money off of a relatively low-budget parody movie, but they spare so many of us from having to sit through these atrocity exhibitions, and that term is not to tie it into the likes of quality art such as the book of the same by J.G. Ballard or Joy Division's Closer, it's just a term that perfectly describes this latest monstrosity.

Right, seeing as how I've already got a head start on the negatives, here it goes officially, because, hey, I skipped to the next paragraph! That makes about as much sense of The Starving Games as a whole. Don't get me wrong, I got to watch it in the comfort of my home because no major studio backed it and therefore, here in the United Kingdom, it only got a direct-to-DVD release, even my inherent masochism that gets me through so many shoddy releases during the course of the year couldn't save me from the exercise in endurance of this picture. Friedberg and Seltzer have written one of their traditional sledgehammer comedy scripts, full of pace and gags and what have you, the problem being that the only ones who seem to find this shit hilarious are Friedberg and Seltzer themselves. They think that they are writing something like The Naked Gun, a movie with a constant barrage of jokes and one of the funniest comedies of all-time. Here what we've got is a bunch of lame references which only seem to exist in the film for the purpose of name-dropping and being in touch with 'popular culture.' So we see Gangnam Style, Fifty Shades Of Grey etc, but this kind of hits the point of absolute absurdity when you have a man dressed as James Cameron showing up saying "I'm the king of the world" as though he said it at this year's Oscar ceremony and not the one in March 1998. Speaking of Cameron and comic timing, Friedberg and Seltzer have this ridiculous thing of on occasion drawing out a gag for two or three minutes too long. There's a whole scene involving a parody of Avatar (cued on by hallucinogenic bee stings and with a sitar playing on the score. Yes, it's a sitar, it must be a hallucination sequence. A sitar, we must put in a sitar. Flower. Power. Sitar. How very very very topically relevant. Ravi, Sitar. Shankar, Sitar. Must, Sitar. Be, Sitar. Turning, Sitar. In, Sitar. His, Sitar. Grave, Sitar. Sitar...) and the whole thing with the hair strands coupling to simulate mating, and this turns into an orgasm sequence with the hair strands going all over the place. It's like a pre-schooler trying to give me a sex education lesson: "the boy's hair looks a penis and the girl's hair looks like a vagina and they put the two together and make love." The other extended sequence that stuck out was this ridiculous scene where, after a preposterously bowdlerised motivational speech about how the people should rise up against this despotic regime and makes the worst Soviet propaganda films from the 1920s look articulate, the masses are placated by a video showing a burger being made, only this burger is just an assortment of food and mess and junk and it lasts for so long that I just want an excuse to make it all go away. Also, I don't know about you, but I am gonna find out the link between Subway and this movie, because I betcha in some form or another, Subway have put money into this and got their products advertised in it, so I'm convinced that they're partially responsible for this. Just about everything about this film suggest laziness to the highest degree. Don't get me wrong, the acting is bad, it's a dully shot movie, the editing is simply horrible, and while Friedberg and Seltzer were rubbish before, you'd like to think that deprived of the resources that are usually available to them they might actually get their heads together and try to make something decent. No, what get is a movie of the same standard we expect from the two, only the production value is of a far worse order. The special effects are that kind matte copy and paste quality that you might see on a twenty-year-old version of MicroSoft PowerPoint, which would lead me to believe that either the animators suck, or that no one on the set could light a decent fire so as to give some illusion that there is something happening here. Also, is it just me or was the whole movie basically shot on location in a field, a forest and some bit of dirt ground with a small stage, microphone, a couple of barrels and a back wall. This is the kind of movie that if extraterrestrial beings in space were to find a copy of in space and watch, they wouldn't watch to come to earth and engage in communications. Finally, ten minutes of screen time dedicated to bloopers that would normally end up on the deleted scenes feature of a DVD are here on display to fill up an eighty-minute screen time. Friedberg and Seltzer are like two very painful ulcers on the inside if your mouth, but they have outdone themselves, and are becoming cancerous ones that you just can't seem to get rid of.

This year has been an exceptional one in movie quality. On the one hand, I've got four movies so far (as this will continue til the end of Oscar season) I'd consider masterpieces (The Act Of Killing, Rush, Gravity, Blue Is The Warmest Colour) and many other great movies that display unique energy and genuine diversity, making this one of the more interesting year's in recent film history. However, equally we've had a number of real stinkers, and The Starving Games would have been my worst film of the year but for two reasons: 1. they'd probably consider a badge of honour of some sort, then try to eat it thinking that any physical presentation I give them would be edible like chocolate money 2. Grown Ups 2 had an $80 million budget and with that much talent they should know better. The Starving Games is the second-worst film I have seen from 2013, but this a small mercy based upon the fact that they don't seem to know any better than how to be, like hipsters, parasitical cultural leeches.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 0.4/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Cool (all set for New Year, new day, new me, woo woo!)

P.S. The second link there is an excellent video review that, while not a good sales pitch for my work, puts it better than my own words ever could.

The Starving Games Trailer

The Starving Games Review/Rant With Alex And Lucas by Austin Putnam

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Blue Is The Warmest Colour

Directed by: Abdellatif Kechiche

Produced by: Abdellatif Kechiche

Brahim Chioua

Vincent Maravel

Screenplay by: Abdellatif Kechiche

Ghalia Lacroix

Based on: Blue Angel by Julie Maroh

Starring: Adele Exarchopoulos

Lea Seydoux

Cinematography by: Sofian El Fani

Editing by: Albertine Lastera

Camille Toubkis

Studio(s): Quat'sous Films

France 2 Cinema

Scope Pictures

Radio Television Belge

Francofone

Vertigo Films

Distributed by: Wild Bunch (France)

Sundance Selects (United States)

Artificial Eye (United Kingdom)

Release date(s): May 23, 2013 (France, Cannes Film Festival, premiere)

October 9, 2013 (France)

October 25, 2013 (United States, limited)

November 22, 2013 (United Kingdom)

Running time: 179 minutes

Country(s): France

Belgium

Spain

Language: French

Production budget: €4 million

Box-office revenue (as of publication): $7, 078, 019

Well hello there, my good compadres, as I've mentioned in my last review, although I haven't been watching any more movies than I usually do, I've indulged rather well my cultural addiction this week. I'm still marching through Clive Barker's Imajica, which, after seven hundred pages, I still have about four hundred left to read of this masterful epic, and I went to Black Sabbath at the Odyssey Arena. Not withstanding the surreality of attending a gig in my regular workplace, the fact that I got to see one of my favourite bands, who I believe are responsible (along with David Bowie's Low) for crafting one of the two greatest albums ever released in their seminal 1970 album Paranoid, notwithstanding a back catalogue with a breadth of fine work. These things being said, as usual, I'm working on other things on and outside the blog, including starting to put the works on my seventh annual Best and Worst of the Year, and also before that comes out there'll be the usual Hall of Fame inductees, so, for the latest and greatest in the movies, keep your eyes posted! 

Today's film up for review, Blue Is The Warmest Colour, brings with it a lot of buzz. Along with the likes of Gravity and 12 Years A Slave, it stands certainly as one of the most talked about films of the year. It won the prestigious Palme d'Or at this year's Cannes Film Festival, which was presented to both the lead actresses and director. With critical acclaim following in it's wake from the likes of Robbie Collin and Peter Bradshaw, and also having the great Spanish director Pedro Almodovar name it one of his favourite films of the year, Blue has also generated a certain degree of negative press. Having taken five months to shoot instead of the projected two-and-a-half, with seven hundred and fifty hours of dailies, the two leads Lea Seydoux and Adele Exarchopoulos, amongst numerous members of the crew, have said that the shoot was horrendous and would never work with director Abdellatif Kechiche again. Since that interview in The Daily Beast (I'll put a link at the bottom of the review, for it makes a good read), Kechiche has made his opinions felt that the film should not be released, for it has been "sullied" by the negative press going into it, the remarks made by the actresses a breach of trust and that he "felt humiliated, disgraced." So, as you can see, there's a bit of contextual baggage going into the picture, but as I said, it's contextual, and you shouldn't let facts outside of the picture make your mind up for you. So, plot synopsis: Adele (Exarchopoulos) is a secondary-school student who has been dissatisfied with a relationship, and passes by a woman with blue hair, falling in love at first sight. On a night out with a friend, she bumps into the woman, named Emma (Lea Seydoux), and from there unfolds a relationship which encompasses the film. Shall we dance?

So, starting with the good, the acting from Adele Exarchopoulos and Lea Seydoux are extraordinary. To address the elephant in the room from the bat, the film's long, graphic sex scenes, I have to say that they were tastefully done and that the two actresses made them work. They are erotic, charged, passionate and the fact of the matter is is that they tell a brilliant physical story in the way that most movies use sex as a disposal commodity are for the base arousal factor. However, though these are the headline-grabbers, if you will there is so much more to their performances than the purely physical manner. Throughout, the two maintain this palpable tension, and inject their roles with a genuine three-dimensional quality: these are people who quite clearly exist and the two treat Adele and Emma as such. Every smile, every tear, every twitch and turn of the eye is masterfully depicted. In this regard, the two also have a wonderful script to work with. We begin the film with Adele as a teenager, who is in a stage of transition, discovering who she is in life. Although it is a three-hour movie where, in Hollywood terms, nothing much happens, there is an astonishing level of complexity to the screenplay, both in terms of the subtly of the structure and the central character development. There were whole scenes in the film which lasted ten, fifteen, even twenty minutes, which would have been drawn out in most other movies, and I was hanging onto every bit of dialogue. Though it is at times wonderfully poetic, it is more so engaging because it is real and this is how people talk in the real world. The long running time is no challenge when you've got a movie that is consistently, from scene to scene, this well written and performed by people who put their all into their work. Technically too, while not a big-budget endeavour by any stretch, the film has many strengths. The cinematography by Sofian El Fani is tremendously expressive, capturing every little detail imaginable. Featuring some beautiful close-ups that would give Tonino Delli Colli's work with Sergio Leone a run for it's money, there are also some painterly landscape shots caught that could end up on a postcard. It's not just beauty for beauty's sake, for it importantly contributes to the telling of the story. The editing is something of real subtlety. The two editors (Albertine Lastera and Camille Toubkis) have cut this film in such a way that there is no overt stylistic traits, but if one assesses it closely enough we can see how these decisions affect our experience of the film. The use of Kuleshovian montage technique enables to experience the film not only from multiple characters' perspectives, but also our own, creating this sort-of questioning as to whose side, if any, are we witnessing. At times there seem to be inclinations of the male gaze whenever a male character is attracted to Adele, but also there moments of finer appreciation and also that of pure objectivity. More subtlety also lies in how, while there are no intertitles or other such things to indicate 'five years later' or what have you, there are still clear passages of time, made all the more jarring by their lack of gimmickry. As such, while it is clearly a real world movie with verite qualities, it maintains a fragmentary, dreamlike atmosphere. The film's use of sound also contributes to this. From what I could ascertain, there didn't seem to be any original musical compositions in the film, so when we hear the songs on the soundtrack, there are a variety of aural techniques used. Sometimes they are brought to the fore, as we may experience under the influence of alcohol, or just playing in the background, but all this adds to our cognitive experience of the film. Also, sound 'effects,' if you will, are used brilliantly. We hear every smack of lips, every sniffle, their joy, orgasm and ecstasy, and it is thoroughly engaging to be treated a movie were no one part is deprived and that the whole thing is a wonderful composite. For this, Abdellatif Kechiche should be, and is fully deserving, of any praise that is garnered in his direction. For all the reports of his being a tyrant on set (he's not the first. Just read a few stories about James Cameron.), the proof is in the pudding here. He has ensured that what we get from his picture is a thoroughly enriching, heartbreaking, heartwarming and extraordinary experience. This film has many pieces that comprise to make up this beautiful puzzle. Also, not to overly politicise the movie, I love the fact that, yes, it's a gay relationship between two women, but how Kechiche portrays their love as simply that: love. There is no fetishisation or overt eroticism on the basis of their same-sex relationship, nor is there that pernicious 'gay-scare' attitude that pervades a lot of contemporary cinema to this day. I'm biased, granted, being a straight ally and fervent supporter of LGBT rights, but to see such well-roundedness and open-minded qualities in a mainstream film is an encouraging breath of fresh air. I always consider it to be something of an honour to be able to watch a movie like Blue Is The Warmest Colour, and I came out of the cinema it feeling all the better for having seen such a wondrous, beautiful, majestic picture. 

Now, as you can tell, I loved this movie, and in my opinion, it's one of four films I've seen in this calendar year (the other three being The Act Of Killing, Rush and Gravity) that I can say are outright masterpiece. Au contraire to the opinions of someone like Francis Ford Coppola, who doesn't think there has been a masterpiece made since the 1970s, I see about four or five films every year that I would define as such. However, though I adored Blue Is The Warmest Colour, I'd be hollow and closed-minded if I were to deny that there will be people who do not like this movie. The long running time in the art-house realm, which made it's name with ninety minutes pictures by the likes of Ingmar Bergman, and which today are exemplified by (often) monstrously bloated $200 million action movies, will be a test for some. Even more so, the sex scenes, which I thought were beautifully executed, will probably alienate some members of the audience (though I would suggest that if you possess the frigidity of the giggling balloon-head sitting behind me, a level of uber-masculinity like the bloke to my left remarking "that was quick," or are a heteronormative fool, this perhaps isn't the movie for you). 

Excusing my nastiness regarding audience reactions (yes, I know it can boil down to personal taste, but allow me to surmise!) to the doubtless alienation some will feel due to the sex scenes and the lengthy running time, I though that Blue Is The Warmest Colour was an excellent movie. The performances from Adele Exarchopoulos and Lea Seydoux are extraordinary acts of virtuosity and the transcendence of truly great acting, the screenplay is among the best of the year, full of the complex development of personal relationships and some brilliant dialogue. Technically, the cinematography is highly expressive and the editing induces very subtly in this real world a dreamlike atmosphere. Aurally too, the film makes appropriate use of it's soundtrack and the sound design/editing contributes to depicting the utter intricacy of the central relationship. It is enriching to get a film so fully realised, and that can be put down also to the direction of Abdellatif Kechiche, who ensures that all these elements make together the composite of a wonderful tapestry. At this year's Cannes Film Festival, the president of the jury, Steven Spielberg said "The film is a great love story... We were absolutely spellbound by the two brilliant young actresses, and the way the director observed his young players." While I wish could make such succinct statements, these are my sentiments precisely, Mr. Spielberg!

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 9.5/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Nyar (that was one of the hardest ratings I've had to hand out: to decide between Blue Is The Warmest Colour and The Act Of Killing is a bloody hard thing to do, so I'm calling a temporary tie!)

Blue Is The Warmest Colour Trailer