The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Suck

(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

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

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

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

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

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

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)