The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Sanitarium

Directed by: Bryan Ramirez

Bryan Ortiz

Kerry Valderrama

Produced by: Rick Carillo

Remy Carter

Alok Khera

Amanda Rubio Ramirez

Kevin Stanford

Kerry Valderrama

Screenplay(s) by: Crystal Bratton

Scott Marcano

Bryan Ortiz

Kerry Valderrama

Created by: Kerry Valderrama

Starring: Malcolm McDowell

Lou Diamond Phillips

John Glover

Robert Englund

David Mazouz

Lazey Chabert

Chris Mulkey

Mayra Leal

Music by: Douglas Edward

Cinematography by: Philip Roy

Editing by: Paul de la Cerda

Justin Malone

Bryan Ortiz

Studio: XYZ Films

Distributed by: Signature Entertainment (United Kingdom)

Release date: June 24, 2013 (United Kingdom)

Running time: 108 minutes

Country: United States

Language: English

Production budget: (N/A)

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

Alrighty so, as I have mentioned in pretty much every freakin' review that I've done over the past week or two, Halloween is just around the corner and I've got a whole load of horror movies that I want to get reviewing, so be all ears for that. Also, it being my equivalent to Christmas round this period, I do plan on doing an article on Lucio Fulci's Gates Of Hell trilogy (City Of The Living Dead, The Beyond,  The House By The Cemetery) and I'll see about getting another one in there. Last year I done an article on 'Alternative Halloween Movies' (a link for which I'll be running at the bottom of each review for the next couple of weeks), so with that covered, I might just do one on Dario Argento or something. So, for all the latest in cinema, keep your eyes posted!

Today's movie, which does not have it's own Wikipedia article, is Sanitarium, a horror anthology film released over here in the United Kingdom straight-to-video (I know it's DVD, but doesn't video sound better?). What sold me on the movie was the involvement of Malcolm McDowell, who plays Dr. Stensen, the sort-of Vincent Price figure linking the three stories in the film together. Furthermore, it was £3 in my local Tesco, and horror anthology films, even at their weakest, are oftentimes more engaging in their short-film-format than their feature-length counterparts. It had a lot to live up to, because this year we've been spoiled and graced with the presence of two great horror movies, Evil Dead and Maniac, but even more strangely, they're horror remakes, which are usually a real thorny no-go in my side. The film has three directors (Bryan Ramirez, Bryan Ortiz, Kerry Valderrama), each directing a segment ('Figuratively Speaking', 'Monsters Are Real', 'Up To The Last Man' respectively) on the topic of the mentally ill, the protagonists each patients in Malcolm McDowell's frame story/plot device of the eponymous Sanitarium. Incidentally, I had to get the title's of the individual segments by consulting my personal DVD copy, because nowhere on the Facebook page or the non-existent website does it mention them, and I didn't know it was an anthology film 'til midway through the film, so for the cock-ups, congratulations to the distributor for undermining the film before people have a chance to even watch it!

So, starting with the good, even though it's quite obvious that he's there to pick up the paycheque for about three day's work, Malcolm McDowell is always a welcome presence. He has one of those voices like a Vincent Price that is perfectly suited to voiceover narration, and even if he's reading the telephone book, you could listen to McDowell all day. He has obviously aged over the forty-five years since he graced the screens as Mick Travis in Lindsay Anderson's If..., but in the voiceover and onscreen, there is still the odd flash and twinkle in the eye of what once was. Also, the third segment, Kerry Valderrama's 'Up To The Last Man' is, as a whole, a very solid piece. The director does what those making a short in an anthology film do best, taking the central concept and working on it from the ground up. The paranoid atmosphere with which the segment is imbued is palpable throughout, with some good set design and a surprisingly affecting performance by Lou Diamond Phillips ensure that we believe in the legitimacy of the concept. Despite having two pieces preceding it and more or less following the same "it's all in their head" format, 'Up To The Last Man' still manages to plant the seeds of doubt and, while nothing new, is a strong riff on the end of days concept. Also, there are glimpses of talent in 'Figurative Speaking.' Featuring John Glover in a good performance as Gustav, a troubled artist who looks somewhat like a dreadlocked Alejandro Jodorowsky, there's some interesting use of montage editing techniques to implicate the increasing mental instability of the character as his creations 'speak' to him. As a whole, Sanitarium is a film that has one really strong segment with another decent middle...

of the road one, and another which is absolutely rubbish. While 'Figuratively Speaking' isn't much to talk about, it's still done with relative skill and one can see it for what it's worth, but the second segment of the film, 'Monsters Are Real,' is only frightening in just how boring it is. Featuring a young boy (named Steven. Alice Cooper reference? No, too much.) whose defining feature seems to be massive glasses ("see him there, huh, huh, he has glasses, he's the troubled one."), it's a poor treatise on domestic violence wrapped up in the marauding guise of the horror genre. Furthermore, the plot development, not to spoil anything, involves a boy who is being harassed by a malevolent creature that only he is aware of, and the story moves in such a way that it doesn't end up making sense at all. I'm sorry, I'm open to everything and benefit of the doubt, yadda, yadda, yadda, but this was the one where I just put my foot down and said there is no narrative coherence here, and I've been through Tetsuo: The Iron Man, Last Year In Marienbad et al (both excellent head-scramblers), and you're completely lost on me. Thankfully, we had the Valderrama segment to pick the whole film up again, but 'Monsters Are Real' was one of the worst pieces of horror cinema I've seen in a long, long time. Other things throughout the film are niggles, such as stilted dialogue being performed by hammy actors (a conversation preceding the 'Monsters Are Real' segment involving a student researching for his paper and a security guard is just horrible) and the collective scores by Douglas Edward are textbook horror movie compositions 101. It's like he just read the script and took the incidental cues off of his experience watching just about every other horror movie: that's not how it works. Finally, I know you guys were shooting on sets, but will some tell DP Philip Roy to LEARN HOW TO USE LIGHTING PROPERLY! It's either too bright to be believable or too dark to see, make up your mind at least!

Sanitarium is a film that doesn't come without merits. Malcolm McDowell is always a welcome presence, however minimal his part, and there are glimpses of talent with the use of montage editing technique in 'Figuratively Speaking.' Furthermore, Kerry Valderrama's 'Up To The Last Man,' the film's highlight, is a legitimately strong example of a psychological horror short. The production design of the primary set, the surprisingly effective performance by Lou Diamond Phillips (and the sound design, which I forgot to mention earlier) create an intensely paranoid atmosphere and an interesting riff on the end of days concept. However, despite this, I've still gotta take Sanitarium as a uniform whole, and in that case it's a primarily negative film. 'Figuratively Speaking' is a decent watch, but the second segment 'Monsters Are Real,' is a poor treatise on domestic violence wrapped up in the marauding guise of the horror genre. The only thing scary about it is just how frighteningly dull it is and just how lacking in narrative coherence the short is (this is someone who thinks Tetsuo: The Iron Man and Last Year In Marienbad are coherent movies). I have an open mind, but with 'Monsters Are Real,' it's one of the rare times I've put my foot down and just admitted I was lost because it made absolutely no sense whatsoever. There is some stilted dialogue performed by hammy actors, the collective scores are taken straight from the horror textbook by Douglas Edward ("insert incidental cue here...") and someone needs to tell DP Philip Roy to LEARN HOW TO USE LIGHTING PROPERLY! As I said, there are merits, but it's more bad than good.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 4.1/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Tired (how do you sleep through three alarms?)

P.S. A new addiction of mine is reddit.com, so check out my profile and threads at  TTWD2708

Sanitarium Trailer

The Thin White Dude's Guide To Alternative Halloween Movies

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Rush

Directed by: Ron Howard

Produced by: Ron Howard

Brian Grazer

Andrew Eaton

Eric Fellner

Brian Oliver

Guy East

Nigel Sinclair

Tobin Armbrust

Tim Bevan

Tyler Thompson

Todd Hallowell

Screenplay by: Peter Morgan

Starring: Chris Hemsworth

Daniel Bruhl

Olivia Wilde

Alexandra Maria Lara

Music by: Hans Zimmer

Cinematography by: Anthony Dod Mantle

Editing by: Daniel P. Hanley

Mike Hill

Studio(s): Exclusive Media

Relativity Media

Revolution Films

Working Title Films

Imagine Entertainment

Cross Creek Pictures

Distributed by: Exclusive Media

Universal Pictures (United States)

StudioCanal (United Kingdom)

Pathe Productions (France)

Release date(s): September 13, 2013 (United Kingdom)

September 20, 2013 (United States)

Running time: 122 minutes

Country(s): United Kingdom

United States

Language(s): English

German

Production budget: $38 million

Box-office revenue (as of publication): $70, 095, 674

Okay there, for reasons which I will get into during the course of the review, I had to take some time to contemplate my opines there, but in that contemplation (and assisting the process), I managed to see two other movies, Sanitarium and A Belfast Story, and in case you don't know already, I've got plenty more on the back burner, especially with Halloween and Oscar season being round the corner (a lot of horror movies being looked at this month). 

So with that being said and a little bit of fuel, courtesy of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, the movie up for review today is Rush, the latest film from Ron Howard, depicting primarily the 1976 Formula One season rivalry between James Hunt (Chris Hemsworth) and Niki Lauda (Daniel Bruhl). I've always thought Ron Howard an underrated filmmaker, for despite his work as a young actor in the sixties and seventies as Opie Taylor and Richie Cunningham (and being subject of numerous ginger jokes courtesy of South Park. Incidentally, CopperCab's a fool), he's a fine director, not without the odd pitfall, but who has made great movies such as Apollo 13, Ransom, A Beautiful Mind (for which he won the Academy Award for Best Director) and Frost/Nixon. Rush reunites him with the latter's screenwriter, Peter Morgan, who has many times before proven himself adept at writing an engaging screenplay involving real-life figures. Also, this is the second major theatrical release in the past few years following on from Asif Kapadia's archival-based masterful Senna, so, with the benchmark for F1-movies being set by that picture, Rush has some big shoes to fill. Brief synopsis, Hunt and Lauda are two highly skilled drivers but polar opposites in their aesthetics, Hunt being the proverbial playboy extraordinaire, drinking heavily and sleeping around, driving hard and aggressively on the track, while Lauda is a low-key, meticulous and calculated, planning every part of his race with the utmost precision. Starting out their rivalry in Formula Three in 1970, the film comes to a head when the focus beams onto the 1976 Formula One season, when Lauda is the defending world champion for Ferrari and Hunt has landed a position with McLaren. Got it? I would say good, but I don't care, so keep pace!

Starting with the good about Rush, although I praised Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy earlier this year for The Heat, I would say that the combination of Hemsworth and Bruhl are about as good an onscreen duo as I have seen in recent years. I spent a while trying to think about whether or not there was a better actor in the equation, but I came to the conclusion that one can't be discussed without the other. Both men play the polar opposites well enough that the audience is directed towards neither over the other, giving one the choice if they wish to favour Lauda over Hunt, or vice versa. Also, Hemsworth and Bruhl work together intelligently, acting as the two Pong paddles bouncing the ball back and forth off of each other in this highly entertaining game of one-upsmanship which gets across every facet of their relationship which, though complex, is simple to define: even though they may at times absolutely loath one another, they both have a drive and determination to be the best at what they do, and both recognise and mutually respect this quality they possess. It's like that old saying (brownie points time!), "You and me are destined to do this forever." Like the onscreen Lauda and Hunt, Bruhl and Hemsworth's performances cannot exist independently of the other, and their extraordinary onscreen chemistry brings out the best in both of them. Another reason why the relationship of Hunt and Lauda works so well is because of the watertight script by Peter Morgan. This is the kind of movie that with the wrong writer could have been overly schmaltzy and full of expository nonsense, but Morgan gets down the core and crux of the characters, more so even than his previous work with Howard, Frost/Nixon, a movie I think very highly of. Also, structurally the design is pure textbook, and I mean that in a good way, for it's the kind of default script that would be worth looking at for budding screenwriters. The first act to set up the film is about thirty-forty minutes, then we spend the next hour or so on the 1976 season, with the third act building to a climax and tying up the film. Just a brief mention that although this is, acting wise, Hemsworth and Bruhl's film, Olivia Wilde, Alexandra Maria Lara and Christian McKay are deliver solid supporting performances. The film must also be praised for it's technical accomplishments. Anthony Dod Mantle (when is he ever not praiseworthy?) never ceases to amaze me as a cinematographer, and the way that he captures the visual language of the story is quite something. He's a man who, for all his innovation in digital cinematography, understands how to tell a story in an accessible and imagistic manner with sharp, clear precision. Furthermore, the way he shoots the F1 racing sequences, with first-person POV shots and shutter speeds that create these blurs which really makes you feel a part of the action. There were several times I was grinding my teeth and gripping the arms of my seat in the cinema. Also responsible for this high drama and tension are the editors Daniel P. Hanley and Mike Hill. As many editors have proven in the wake of the Jason Bourne movies, the use of digital cinematography shaky-cam methods is often taken as the cue to go all Michael Myers in the editing suite and not action cut a scene with any semblance of sequential coherence. Hanley and Hill though walk the tightrope with skill, cutting the racing scenes so as that they remain thoroughly intense, but also not forgetting that their duty, first and foremost, is to tell a story. I mentioned the imagism in relation to the cinematography, and the same can be said for the editing, because even if this was a silent movie, you'd still get it as a result of the intelligent use of montage putting over to the audience the metaphorical aspects of the Hunt/Lauda dichotomy. Another of the things that make Rush such a great film (and I will use that term already) is just how well the movie sounds. The sound designers, editors and foley artists have done an excellent bit of work to get us into the atmosphere of the racing scenes. When you're in these scenes, all you're getting is the sound of the engines and the wheels going round corners, and hearing this from the perspective of the drivers is really quite overwhelming and powerful. Many films neglect the art of sound design, but this is one movie that not only respects the medium, but also uses it to contribute to the overall drama of the film. Also, in the non-racing scenes, the score by Hans Zimmer is another one of his many great achievements as a composer. Sometimes it's hard to describe Zimmer, because listening to his work you just outright feel and understand it more than words can do justice. He builds things from the ground up with minimalism, for instance, with a single electric guitar and a few violins, followed by the arrival and a bass and an additional electric guitar, then a leitmotif is played a single cello, which becomes a melody, and the brass starts to come in, followed by percussive instruments, and the whole thing builds towards a glorious extended crescendo, returning to the leitmotif and gradually fading out. Excuse the gross, overly-descriptive blah blah there, but there is nary a composer (besides, perhaps, Howard Shore) who understands the musical of aesthetics of storytelling between than Zimmer, and this is another classic case of his majestic work. Finally, although he's made great films in the past, I feel that this Ron Howard's best film to date as a director. He has always been good at delivering a drama, but what I admire the most about how he handles Rush is that he manages to ensure that all the tangibles are consistently the part of one unified piece. All of his various collaborators do some terrific work, but Howard ensures that their contributions are all part of the same weave that is Rush, no one element overriding the other. On a personal note, I saw this last week, and the reason I'm taking the time is because I was in the cinema by myself (I went to an early screening) and for a while I was sure I was watching a very good movie, but by about halfway through I was convinced of its mastery. I cried at several occasions and was hooked throughout during racing sequences, and because of Howard's intuitive prerogative to make Rush all a consistent piece, it works as both a poignant human drama and as an intense action movie. 

Now, the criticisms. As you've gathered perhaps from the above praises, this section isn't going to be as thorough as most other movies. Just the occasional thing stuck out as awkward. For instance, although I think for the most part they did a fine job (I'll use this moment to flag up the collective work of those on the mise-en-scene), but there are times when the special effects do look like special effects. Also, though Morgan's script is for the most part flawless, there are at times little bits of dialogue which stick out, not quite as the proverbial thorns in the side, but more mildly irritant. 

Despite those little things and a bit of sour grapes after looking up Cole Smithey's tiresome drivel, neither of them can ruin the fact that Rush is one of the best films of the year. Not to go off on the old summary schtick again, but this is a movie that comprises of so many more elements that make up the masterwork. Film is a collaborative medium, and Rush is one of those pictures that is proof of the efforts of many people coming together to make the best movie possible. It delivers drama and action in equal doses, and will give the audience about as good a mainstream film that ticks the boxes as they're likely to see this year. 

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 9.2/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Good good (not even Kojak Smithey can make me grumpy)

Rush Trailer

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Filth

Directed by: Jon S. Baird

Produced by: Jon S. Baird

Mark Amin

Christian Angermayer

Will Clarke

Stephen Mao

Ken Marshall

Jens Meurer

Celine Rattray

Trudie Styler

Screenplay by: Jon S. Baird

Based on: Filth by Irvine Welsh

Starring: James McAvoy

Imogen Poots

Jamie Bell

Eddie Marsan

Jim Broadbent

Music by: Clint Mansell

Cinematography by: Matthew Jensen

Editing by: Mark Eckersley

Studio(s): Steel Mill Pictures

Film i Vast

Distributed by: Lionsgate (United Kingdom)

Release date(s): September 16, 2013 (Old Taito International Comedy Film Festival)

September 27, 2013 (Scotland)

October 4, 2013 (United Kingdom)

Running time: 97 minutes

Country: United Kingdom

Language: English

Production budget: (Not Available)

Box-office revenue (as of publication): £250, 000 (Scotland; first weekend receipts only)

Land ahoy! At least, the metaphorical landscape on the horizon of the mind. You doubtless already know, Halloween is just around the corner, and as such, although I'm sure I'll get to the cinema, I've made contingency plans in case I'm too afraid to walk the streets and bump into Freddy Krueger, never mind the McDonalds on the Newtownards Road! I've got copies of Sanitarium, The Lords Of Salem and Stoker (courtesy of Danland Movies), and also a copy of a film called Diaz: Don't Clean Up This Blood, which I know next to nothing about and am going into blind. So, for all the latest regarding the movies, keep your eyes posted!

Although certainly not classified as such in genre terms, this film is something along the lines of what Alexander DeLarge would describe as "real horrorshow!" Filth is adapted from the Irvine Welsh novel of the same name, and for those of you who don't know, I'm a huge fan of Welsh's literature, and I feel that I he is among the best writers of the past twenty-five years. His debut novel Trainspotting, a literary masterwork, was of course adapted into a cinematic masterwork in 1996 by John Hodge and directed by Danny Boyle, and while there have been other Welsh adaptations (1998's The Acid House, 2011's Irvine Welsh's Ecstasy), Filth has some big shoes to fill with the former film hanging over it. However, it is a very different kettle of fish to Trainspotting, and in terms of the material, having read much of Welsh's work, I would say it's his most transgressive and troublesome book, given the scale of the protagonist's misanthropy. James McAvoy plays Detective Sergeant Bruce Robertson, a cruel Machiavellian who treats everyone around him like dirt, habitually indulges in copious amounts of cocaine, alcohol and is involved in a number of sexually abusive relationships. In the midst of all his off-duty (and on-duty) activities, Robertson is involved in a murder investigation and engages ruthlessly in dirty one-upsmanship against his colleagues in order to advance his pursuit to gain the new promotion spot open for Detective Inspector. Now you see, yes?

To start with the good, James McAvoy gives an absolutely superb performance in the lead role. Having read the book, I won't lie, I imagined a different kind of actor in the part, more of a burly, Ray Winstone type, but McAvoy gets it spot on. Also, it's a very hard role to get over to the audience, as the character is so thoroughly loathsome, but McAvoy makes him so entertaining to watch. Completely immersing himself in the part, McAvoy not only looks every bit the part, but has all the appropriate facial expressions, tics and eccentricities that make up Bruce Robertson. His delivery of the lines in what is a pretty full-on script is note perfect, both with regards to his knowing how to play the timing of the dialogue and maintaining a fast and furious pace. Finally, although I'm sure I could go on and on about how great this performance is, McAvoy is able to make this loathsome character engaging enough to be consistently humorous, but also somehow manages to have the repugnant Robertson be sympathetic and full of pathos when the shit hits the proverbial fan for him. Also, although this is James McAvoy's movie, it's a solid ensemble cast, with Imogen Poots, Jamie Bell, Eddie Marsan, Jim Broadbent, Kate Dickie, Gary Lewis, Emun Elliot and Brian McCardie all putting out good work. Writer-director John S. Baird also must be praised for going all out and balls to the wall with this one, as the source is tough as hell, and this is the kind of adaptation that could have ended up really watered down. However, Baird sticks to his guns, translating the Welshian Edinburg Scots dialectical qualities with real strength, and proving himself a formidable scribe, the dialogue and situational comedy being among the most gross-out and outright hilarious things I have seen in a film all year. In a comedic climate that features films like Grown Ups 2 and The Hangover Part III, Filth's many belly-laughs are a real pleasure. Furthermore, and this is a praise for him in his capacities as director and writer (plus producer), as I said, when the shit hits the fan, it really does, and Baird has enough strength of conviction to depict the serious issues of his protagonist's character and follow it through to it's natural conclusion. It is equal parts comedy and drama, and at certain points, it gels the two together into this bizarre and surreal black tragedy. Another aspect of the film that is praiseworthy is the score by Clint Mansell. One of our great contemporary composers is most of the time a pleasure, and he maintains the pace of the film set out by Baird's script. Where he really shines however is in the downward spiral scenes, many of which are played out as mostly-silent montages, not only meaning that we have a lack of basil expository nonsense, but also that Mansell can, with the use of his strings and minimalist keyboard notes, immerse us in the psychological space of Bruce Robertson. We know that Mansell can do absolute descent's well, but here he touches another plateau. The final major aspect of the film that I'd like to point out is the excellent editing on the part of Mark Eckersley. Hot off the heels of his work on Dredd last year, Eckersley makes what could be a scatter-brained mess of a film a wonderful pop-art tableau, mixing the colours together and forming a seamless picture. There are so many different aspects that could have been passed around like a hot potato, but Eckersley caresses them and ensures that they all slot in perfectly. In just about any other movie, they wouldn't fit, but the fact is is that they do, and Eckersley deserves to be praised for this.

In case you haven't gathered, I liked Filth. Heck, I'll even go so far as to say I loved it and had a great time. Nevertheless, I've gotta say that while it does so so much right, it unfortunately is not a masterpiece, great though it may be. My explanation defies traditional aspects of reviewing, for the approach I will be taking is far more subjective and requires a certain material comparison. If you put Filth (the text and the film) alongside Trainspotting (text and film), there's a key difference: you connect on a far deeper emotional level with the story of the latter than that of Filth. The journey that you and the characters go on in Trainspotting involves essentially a coming-of-age story of a bunch of aimless young men who happen to be stuck in a rut with heroin addiction, whereas here there's an element of Bruce Robertson winding on a downward spiral of his own creation. There's a wonderful element of reflexivity as the character of Robertson is clearly aware of this, and thus it is blackly tragic, but the fact doesn't change that while it's an excellent character, you just don't care about him as much as the Skagboys. 

I wouldn't consider my completely subjective approach to reviewing the film as a condemnation, for while I certainly feel that Filth does not reach the heights of Trainspotting, most movies don't, and it doesn't change the fact that this is still a great movie. James McAvoy gives one of the best performances of the year, and completely immersed in creating the physical and emotional embodiment of the character, while the ensemble cast are uniformly solid. Also, writer-director Jon S. Baird sticks to his guns and refuses the water down the toughness of the Welsh source, delivering one of the funniest and well-balanced scripts of the year and a film with real strength of conviction. The Clint Mansell score too, particularly in the montage sequences, injects into our heads to the psychological landscape of Bruce Robertson. Finally, the editing by Mark Eckersley mixes the colours and makes the film, which could have been a scatterbrained mess, is instead a beautifully seamless pop-art tableau. And you'll never look at Billy Ocean's Love Really Hurts Without You the same way again!

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 8.6/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Meh!

Filth Trailer

The Thin White Dude's Movie Of The Month(s): August/September 2013 - What Maisie Knew

What Maise Knew is an intelligent drama and a masterclass in acting, most especially from Onata Aprile, who plays the eponymous Maisie in a performance of innate foresight that holds up the entire film. The script is tightly structured, and the deconstruction of conventional family dynamics is very interesting, and the majestic cinematography does much in putting across the child's-eye perspective. Finally, directors Scott McGehee and David Siegel control all the tangible elements and deliver a PG-rated movie that is proof that, much as I love exploitation cinema, that it's not necessary to fill the BBFC checkbox to make a great film

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 8.2/10

Runner-Up: Blackfish - Relatively unimaginative, but effective and genuinely poignant subject matter that works as both a genre thriller and a documentary.

Second-Most Deadly Disease: Diana - Not as bad as it's cracked up to be, but terribly middle of the road, with all the edges sanded off and frightfully dull.

Avoid Like The Plague: Grown Ups 2 - It would be more interesting to spend a hundred minutes rolling around naked in a landfill. The single worst film I have seen in the whole of my seven years as a film reviewer. El fin?

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Diana

Directed by: Oliver Hirschbiegel

Produced by: Robert Bernstein

Douglas Rae

Screenplay by: Stephen Jeffreys

Based on: Diana: Her Last Love by Kate Snell

Starring: Naomi Watts

Naveen Andrews

Cas Anvar

Music by: Keefus Ciancia

David Holmes

Cinematography by: Rainer Klausmann

Editing by: Hans Funck

Studio(s): Ecosse Films

Film i Vast

Filmgate Films

Le Pacte

Mahla Filmes

Scope Pictures

Distributed by: Entertainment One

Release date(s): September 5, 2013 (Premiere)

September 20, 2013 (United Kingdom)

November 1, 2013 (United States)

Running time: 113 minutes

Country: United Kingdom

Langauge: English

Production budget: (Not Available)

Box-office revenue (as of publication): $2, 230, 489 (United Kingdom only)

Alrighty then, with the rate of reviews coming in fast and furious now, this will be the last review of this bracket, and then I will be doing a summary of the month(s) of August/September much along the lines of my usual review of the month schtick. I just had to pile the two together because I saw bugger all in the month of August. I've already gotten started on October, having seen Filth on the Friday opening night (more of which in due time), so for all the latest at the movies, keep your eyes posted!

Today's film up for review is Diana, the latest in a long line of Oscar-baiting biopics about a British person. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be cynical, but The Yanks at the Academy love giving awards out to people playing famous Britons. Indeed, twice in the past three Academy Award ceremonies have acting honours went to this small group, Colin Firth of course for his brilliant performance in The King's Speech as King George VI, and Meryl Streep for playing the now well and truly deceased Mrs. Thatcher. Now, it's no secret that Diana has been savaged in the United Kingdom by the press, and not just the odd bad review, uniformly negative opinions have been shared regarding this picture. Naomi Watts herself indicated an awareness of this reception, as seen in the interview hosted by Simon Mayo, during which she was on the defensive and cut it short by two minutes. However, despite having heard these things, I think very highly of Naomi Watts as an actress, working in films such as 21 Grams, King Kong, Eastern Promises (a movie that deserves rediscovering), last year's The Impossible, and her breakthrough role in David Lynch mesmerising 2001 film Mulholland Drive. Also, the director Oliver Hirschbiegel is a talented, poised filmmaker, having made for BBC Two the Northern Ireland-set film Five Minutes Of Heaven, starring Liam Neeson and Jimmy Nesbitt, and is also responsible for Downfall, the extraordinary biopic of the last days Adolf Hitler, starring Bruno Ganz, and not only one of cinema's great biopics, but one of the best film's of the noughties. With those credentials and context sorted, lets talk synopsis: focusing on the last two years of her life following her divorce from Prince Charles, it depicts primarily the eponymous Diana falling in love with Hasnat Khan (Naveen Andrews), a heart surgeon who wishes to stay out of the limelight, and, of course, being in a relationship with one of the world's most famous people creates complications. Shall we dance?

I'll go off on a different note perhaps from the highly derisory reviews by pointing out that there are good things about Diana. There are some instances of fine cinematography by Rainer Klausmann. Having worked with Hirschbiegel before and also Fatih Akin on Head-On and The Edge Of Heaven, Klausmann brings his unique photographic style (which involves a very expressionistic form that highlights the strength of an actor's performances), and some parts of the film, particularly the opening scene following Naomi Watts' Diana from behind through various rooms, are strong. Also, Naveen Andrews pitches his performance as Hasnat Khan right down the middle, playing out the mixed emotions of the surgeon rather well. A charming and sympathetic screen presence with a wonderful delivery of lines akin to that of Jeremy Irons, Andrews also carries the weight to necessary to get across the emotional conflict of Khan, and makes for the film's best performer. The standout scene in the film is a terrific bit of work when Diana and Khan head off into the country and walk along a beach with Jacques Brel's Ne Me Quitte Pas playing over the top of it. Perhaps it isn't a good thing to say about the movie, but for the brief couple of minutes this was going on, it was a poignant little music video of two people in love, Watts and Andrews both at their best performance wise. Some of the silent montages in the film like this, and also one that reveals itself as the proverbial 'second-act dramatic tension scene' unfold rather well, and hint at the direction Hirschbiegel probably should have taken the film.

Now, as I said, the film has received more or less scathing reviews of people just savaging the movie, and while I don't feel quite as bad as some, and Diana isn't what you think of as a typical 'bad movie,' but the fact is is that it is the most generic, bland and simply dull film I have seen this year. It just plays down the line of this middle of the road picture that does not dare to do anything overly challenging with Lady Di or any of the material they had at their disposal. I mean, Hirschbiegel's Downfall had the gall, the audacity to simply look at Adolf Hitler from an objective humanistic perspective, but this is so teeky and has any/all of the edges to it sanded off. The screenplay by Stephen Jeffreys is saccharine, full of this kind of earnestness and respect for Diana that shows them as far too much in awe of the subject. Also, the dialogue is absolutely woeful, with this overtly staged dialogue that does nothing but suggest to the audience that nobody in any world or realm of the living actually talks like that. It is so artificial and clunkily-constructed that it turns the Tyrell Corporation's "More Human Than Human" slogan into "Less Human Than Human." It would be satirical and humorous if it wasn't so pathetic and disappointing at the same time. Also, the structure and arc of the plot, if I am so bold to use the word 'plot,' cops out completely on any source of tension that could be derived of Diana's relationships with Khan and Dodi Fayed. It just says essentially that Dodi Fayed was essentially just rebound off of her relationship with Khan, and you're just like "No, life is more complicated than that!" Furthermore, in the title role, much as I admire her extended work as an actress, Watts fails to convince in the lead role in the same way the likes of Colin Firth did in The King's Speech. I think that more time should have been spent on getting across the emotional drive of the character, as opposed to playing around with an accent that ultimately still sounds like a cracked Naomi Watts. She is a talented actor with all the poise and instinct for the art in the world, but she fails to truly get inside what the filmmakers' are trying to put over on the audience. The movie is also way too long at nearly two hours. If it had been about ninety to a hundred minutes, it might have been acceptable as a decent film, but it goes on and on, the scenes dragging out past their natural conclusions. I saw the film with my mum and at one point I got chastised by her for starting to nod off in the third act. Much as I don't actively dislike the film in the way others this year, such as The Hangover Part II, After Earth and (the worst film I have seen in seven years of reviewing films) the nadir that is Grown Ups 2, if the movie is consistently dull enough to cause me to fall asleep, then it mustn't be anything worth seeing. (And the music is abominable: EHO/Emotional Heartstrings Orchestra 101!)

Diana isn't as bad as it's all cracked up to be. Rainer Klausmann provides some fine instances of cinematography, particularly in conjunction with director Hirschbiegel's use of silent montage in certain scenes. It also contains a strong performance from Naveen Andrews, and the scene involving Brel's Ne Me Quitte Pas is a poignant highlight, though it does tell us more or less how the movie should have been made. Unfortunately, though not as actively loathsome as some films, it has a saccharine script from Stephen Jeffreys, which has terrible characterisation and structure, and the dialogue he has scribed sounds like no one in the world, ever! Also, Naomi Watts, talented as she is, fails to convince in the title role, and the movie drags itself on for far far longer than is necessary. As I said, not actively loathsome, but terribly middle of the road, with all edges sanded off and frightfully dull.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 3.5/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Good good (relaxing Sunday, reading Dragon Ball, WWE Battleground PPV tonight, listening to Billy Idol's Eyes Without A Face)

Diana Trailer

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Elysium

Directed by: Neil Blomkamp

Produced by: Neil Blomkamp

Bill Block

Simon Kinberg

Sue Baden-Powell

Screenplay by: Neil Blomkamp

Starring: Matt Damon

Jodie Foster

Sharlto Copley

Alice Braga

Diego Luna

Wagner Moura

William Fichtner

Music by: Ryan Amon

Cinematography by: Trent Opaloch

Editing by: Julian Clarke

Lee Smith

Studio(s): Alphacore

Media Rights Capital

QED International

Distributed by: TriStar Pictures

Release date(s): August 9, 2013 (United States)

August 21, 2013 (United Kingdom)

Running time: 109 minutes

Country: United States

Language(s): English

Spanish

Production budget: $115 million

Box-office revenue (as of publication): $263, 655, 806

Right there, starting to get the activity back, if ya ken what a mean, boss? Sorry for the shoddy Edinburgh Scots there, but I've just seen an advertisement for Filth, the new Irvine Welsh adaptation starring James McAvoy and I can safely say it's one of my most anticipated films of the year. It looks like it's going to be an absolute, no-holds-barred screamer. Among others, I'm planning on getting to see Diana, Rush and Blue Jasmine (I haven't reviewed a Woody Allen movie before!), so, with Halloween (article or two in the works there) and Oscar season around the corner, keep your eyes posted!

Today's film up for a look in is Elysium, another of my most anticipated movies of 2013, as it's the sophomore feature from director Neill Blomkamp. Bursting onto the scene with 2009's District 9, an independent science-fiction film with action and intelligence in equal portions that was a surprise hit and bagged four Oscar nominations, including Best Picture. Very much one of the fastest rising film artists, Blomkamp re-unites with many of his District 9 crew for Elysium. BIG PLOT CHUNK AHOY! In 2154, the eponymous location (a reference to the Ancient Greeks' conception of the Elysian Fields as an afterlife) is a space station inhabited by the wealthy who are kept free from disease, while Earth is impoverished, overpopulated and ruled by robots to keep them under control. Matt Damon stars as Max Da Costa, a former car thief on parole attempting to live day by day in the ruins of Los Angeles working in an assembly line for Armadyne Corp., but he is exposed to a lethal dose of radiation. In the midst of this, illegal Earth immigrants are attempting to reach Elysium and Secretary Of Defence Jessica Delacourt (Jodie Foster) enlists the service of mercenary Kruger (Sharlto Copley) to take them out. The President does not appreciate these extra-legal measures, and thus a coup d'etat is conceived by Delacourt and Armadyne's CEO John Carlyle (William Fichtner) to override the Elysium database and make her President. Of course, Max, with his short life expectancy, needs to get to Elysium and that begs the question, will their paths cross? Let's find out. BIG PLOT CHUNK BYPASSED!

Following on from the largest, more or less spoiler-free plot synopsis in the history of this blog (we're all about firsts here), it brings me to what is good about this film. In order to lay out that groundwork, I had to devote some time and space, whereas in the movie it is all dealt with in a decent, relative timeframe. Blomkamp, in the four years since District 9, has obviously devoted a lot of time and attention to detail in creating the world of his picture. Equally devoted to bringing the vision to the screen is production designer Philip Ivey, who has done a tremendous job in making us believe in this future world. Like District 9, but more so as that film was in a contemporary setting, Elysium is full of careful craft and an attention to detail not dissimilar to that seen in a Guillermo del Toro picture. Ivey is a student of science-fiction cinema and Syd Mead, and the respect that he has for those before him, while carving his own designer's path, comes through here. The exosuits created by Weta Workshop are standouts in the picture, the scene involving Damon and his suit (I'll not spoil) is a fine example of people thinking outside the box and harking to an extremis form of artistry, pushing the imagination to the limit. Indeed, the mise-en-scene as a whole is a remarkable achievement, with the makeup and costume design being among the finest I have seen all-year round. The visual effects, headed up primarily by Image Engine (among others), are meticulously designed, complicated and full of little bits and bobs and intricacies that just set a standard above and beyond the norm. Their contribution is another strong addition to the tapestry of this piece, blending seamlessly with the location shooting by Trent Opaloch. He brings the same photographic sensibilities from that film over to this one, the dust and grime in the Earth-bound scenes are captured in all their grot, Opaloch getting across the sense of this world as oppressive and bleak with his excellent digital photography, which, when put together with the beauty in the idyllic gardens of Elysium, make for an extreme contrast. This sense of contrast and class structure in the film is put over by Opaloch consistently high standard of digital photography. The film also has two very talented editors who do a great job of cutting it. Julian Clarke (another District 9 alumni) is teamed with Lee Smith, who has worked with Peter Weir and Chris Nolan on his past five films, so both know a thing or two about how to edit a big action film. Like that previous film, Elysium is an R-rated action movie not afraid to have the audience feel the impact of blood and things spattering into a million different places, but furthermore, the action scenes in the film have a weight and power behind them that most others are lacking, and this is down to the classic Kuleshovian knowledge that the two editors have with timing things just right so that the audience feels them. Finally, on the acting front, while Matt Damon is just about always a reliable lead, once again, the show-stealer is Sharlto Copley. Looking ever more messed-up than he did in the middle of his transformation in District 9, Copley is a genuinely intimidating and menacing screen presence, taking an otherwise secondary character/trope and turning him into a figure of intrigue. His Kruger is the epitome of an onscreen loose cannon, and any time this character is onscreen there is a palpable sense of tension in the air. Sick, twisted and yet intelligently aware of his transgression of moral and personal boundaries, his performance is so convincing that during the course of my research I've found that playing Kruger has put Copley off playing villains: he might not want to play the bad guy, but I'm not going to stop watching them if he does!

Now, I've had a lot to say praiseworthy about Elysium, and I'll certainly give it it's dues where I feel it's deserved and warranted. However (the big however), the fact is is that while it has all these things going for it, Elysium also has a number of problems firmly entrenched in it's design. Interestingly, the problem lies in Neil Blomkamp. Sometimes auteurs can be a double-edged sword, in that while they are what makes the film distinctive and with it's own unique footprint, but on occasion the auteur is not the best judge of their own work. Stephen King made reference to this in his book On Writing regarding the importance of having a 'reader,' someone who can objectively judge your work, in his case his wife and fellow novelist Tabitha King. On District 9, Blomkamp was writing with Terri Tatchell, who's also working on his next picture Chappie, and her absence here is notable. Unfortunately, for all the creativity and effort gone into making the world, Blomkamp, as a sole screenwriter and director, has lost insight of the fact that, at it's core, this film has a base and rather predictable script. Obviously, the shadow of District 9 hangs high over this, but while said film had so much going for it in terms of density and thematic content, this attempts to go for the mawkish high road of sentimentality, takes absolutely nothing with a pinch of salt and contains none of the RoboCop-esque satire and black humour that made previous film so unique. Also, as far as a sophomoric project goes, Blomkamp may have been aiming too high. Indeed, look at what happened to Richard Kelly with Southland Tales, although this is nowhere near the trough in which that picture now resides. Duncan Jones, who released his debut feature Moon in 2009 (along with Blomkamp's film, Star Trek and Avatar were also put out that year) and following that up with Source Code, a simple yet remarkably inventive sci-fi thriller and a modest upward movement. Blomkamp has plenty of years ahead as a filmmaker and does not need to go and make his 2001. All that aside, the script does come across as a poor retread, both of District 9 and x-number of movies across the genre border over the years. Along these lines, I was not fussed on Ryan Amon's score. It's not a particularly bad score, but it really waters down the sort of, post-apocalyptic industrial gruel that we are quite clearly meant to be rolling around in. I'm not against an emotional, heart-rending score, but it over-romanticised and creates a shameless sense of self-mythologising in the movie, and thus qualifies for the EHO (Emotional Heartstrings Orchestra). 

Despite those problems, which I admit probably felt worse off of the sharp intelligence of District 9, whose shadow quite clearly is looming, my conclusion is still positive for Elysium. While it is full of red flags and lacks the intelligence needed to put the movie over fully to me, there is still a genuine artistic drive from everyone involved to try to make the best movie possible. Neil Blomkamp may have been aiming too high and thus lost sight of the ground below, but there is still enough here to convince me of it being a movie of relative merit.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 6.2/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Bored (work is non-existent this week...)

Elysium Trailer

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Runner, Runner

Directed by: Brad Furman

Produced by: Arnon Milchan

Jennifer Davison Killoran

Leonardo DiCaprio

Michael Shamberg

Stacey Sher

Screenplay by: Brian Koppelman

David Levien

Starring: Justin Timberlake

Gemma Arterton

Anthony Mackie

Ben Affleck

Music by: Christophe Beck

Cinematography by: Mauro Fiore

Editing by: Jeff McEvoy

Studio(s): Regency Enterprises

Appian Way Productions

Double Feature Films

Distributed by: 20th Century Fox

Release date(s): September 27, 2013 (United Kingdom)

October 4, 2013 (United States)

Running time: 91 minutes

Country: United States

Language: English

Production budget: $30 million (movieweb.com)

Box-office revenue (as of publication): $11, 246, 000

So, payday was good, and I wish I could say I went to the depths to try and find you guys another oddball movie to review that might not have been seen as much as, say, Iron Man 3, but the fact is despite scouring the depths of G2 Pictures, in the hope of finding another gem like Transit, the most I came out with (money-wise, anyway) was some more Dragon Ball comics and Planet Hulk. So, in light of that completely irrelevant and pithy update, for more of the some dribble, keep your eyes posted (good grief, that was terrible!).

Today's (and tomorrow's: je suis paresseux...) is Runner, Runner. The film was released in the United Kingdom on the 27th September and I saw it on the 23rd at a press screening at The Movie House, Dublin Road, courtesy of my good friend over at Danland Movies. It seems an unusual release circuit, as it's doing the rounds before being released in the United States, presumably to test the waters as to how well it's going to be received with audiences, as I'm sure the studios are aware of the derisory reviews that the critics have been punching in. Presumably they're waiting for CinemaScore to give their verdict, and they'll decide on their domestic release strategy from there! So, story, story of Runner, Runner goes like this: Richie Furst (Justin Timberlake) is a Princeton student cheated out of his tuition money, and goes to confront the notorious Ivan Block (Ben Affleck) with information about the blackmail, but ends becoming his protege and is sucked into an underworld based off of the financial success of those running online poker scams, all the while being tailed by Agent Shavers (Anthony Mackie) who tries to turn Richie into a double-player for both Block and the Feds. Simple? Good!

To start with the good about Runner, Runner, I'll address the cast. Although by no means are they fully fleshed-out characters (more of which in due time), they've got some good players in to do the job. While it may be implausible to buy Justin Timberlake as a student, if you forget about this and just go with him as the proverbial lead/audience cypher, you'll accept him in that position. Timberlake began venturing into acting a number of years back and when he began his musical hiatus in 2007, he became more prominent on this front, and has proven himself time and again as a solid performer. Anthony Mackie, although not given a great amount of screen time, is convincing in his role as an FBI agent. The real show-stealer (and obviously it's designed as such) is Ben Affleck's Ivan Block. Although a trope of 'charismatic bad guy,' Affleck is more than capable at doing this, and shows another layer of dexterity in his deck. Taking all the best lines and delivering them with a truly barbed edginess, Affleck eats up the part, and while it could be accused to scenery-chewing, the fact is that it's entertaining scenery-chewing and undoubtedly the highlight of the movie, proving that sometimes it's good to be bad. Another praiseworthy aspect of the film is the cinematography by Mauro Fiore. He may have won an Academy Award for Avatar, but this is more along the lines of his work in Training Day. Puerto Rico is depicted as a hot, sweaty place of urbane decadence, and Fiore's lighting has a strong contrast depending on the time. The daytime shoots take in as much of the powerful natural light as possible, showing both the beauty and how overwhelming it can be, the night having an interesting tonal palette, depicting the glitz and glam while also the grimy underworld decadence of this world. Finally, although by no means is it any great bit of work (or a particularly good one for that matter), it is still a relatively watchable flick. Director Brad Furman directs right down the middle, and while not making it anything special, it is still a controlled, decent work. 

Decent it may be, but I did say in due time at one point there, and the clock hath struck three-o-clock, so here come thy crimitisms, as Jed Leland would say (proverbial brownie points). The worst thing about this film is clearly the script by Brian Koppelman and David Levien. It's hard to know where to start because it has to be one of the most derivative and perfunctory pieces of screenwriting to emerge in the past year. I mean, White House Down had a cliched script, but Roland Emmerich and co. know how to have fun with that, with this, at the most you get a temporary rise. Not spoil the film, but I did see a lot of comparisons plot-wise to The Last King Of Scotland, only that this is bereft of the dramatic tension that is built up throughout Kevin McDonald's film by the Peter Morgan/Jeremy Brock writing and the terrific performances by James McAvoy and Forest Whitaker. The characterisation is poor, most especially with that of Gemma Arterton, a perfectly fine actress played a part that describe as a trope would be an overstatement, rather, the better term is 'cardboard cut-out,' because despite her talents, all she's made to do and stand around and look pretty. Finally, there's not much else to say apart from the fact that (as pointed out by my friend at Danland Movies) there is no third act. It's wrapped up quicker than a deus ex machina, and you just think "really?" The film is produced by Leonardo DiCaprio and Arnon Milchan, among others (the film has five credited producers), and you do just wonder do these people really believe that they are putting out a good work, or are they just going at it half-assed? Milchan in particular, who after his 'endeavours' with the Israelis in the sixties/seventies put his name and bucks to films such as The King Of Comedy, Once Upon A Time In America, Brazil, Natural Born Killers and Fight Club, the last great movie he produced, just does not seem to give a damn about the overall quality of his pictures above and beyond whether or not they are borderline releasable.

I wouldn't take the above as outright criticisms of Runner, Runner. Indeed, this is the kind of film that presents itself as a hard movie for me to review because it doesn't agree with me aesthetically. I'm an extremist who doesn't do things half-way. The things that energise me are either movies I really like or really loath, and the same goes for my own art: I put EVERYTHING into my work! It's not that I dislike or particularly like Runner, Runner, it's just one of those down the middle movies that is a decent bit of work, nothing special, nothing atrocious. 

The Thin White Dude' Prognosis - 5.0/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Inbetweenies (as I said, half-way doesn't agree with my aesthetics. Hell, I eschewed my summary because of it!)

Runner, Runner Trailer