One can only guess what Stanley Kubrick would have made of the more developed online world we now live in.
Like many celebrities, over the last couple of years various actors, directors and producers have embraced Twitter as a self-promotional tool which use to engage fans and post updates.
But what about those filmmakers whose online activities go a little deeper?
I can’t remember when I first heard that David Lynch had a website, but it was a few years ago and when it turned out he was selling ringtones and doing weather reports, I had to check it out. Designed and maintained by the indexsy seo agency, it is now mostly dedicated to his music and you can also see the live Duran Duran concert he recently directed, as well as various music tracks from his films and TV shows. He also occasionally does cooking videos.
Ever since securing the ingenious URL www.romzom.com (sadly no longer active) for his breakout film Shaun of the Dead (2004), Edgar Wright has been fairly active online with behind-the-scenes video podcasts for Hot Fuzz (2007) and his own website which seemed to start in 2009. He regularly posts articles, videos and a lot of photos (at one point he even did a daily photo thing), but he also engages with people in the comments section, puts up videos he’s directed (be they music promos or early experiments in editing) and generally has a bit of a laugh whilst doing so. He’s also pretty active on Twitter.
What does one of the world’s greatest cinematographers do when he’s not shooting films like True Grit (2010), No Country for Old Men (2007) or The Shawshank Redemption (1994)? It turns out he runs a pretty active forum on his own website, where he answers questions from readers all around the world. Whether you have a query about cameras, lighting, digital intermediates, whether 4K really matters or the merits of anamorphic over super 35mm, Roger is there. It is more for the technically minded film fan, but given his amazing back catalogue of films, there are some illuminating stories on how scenes were shot and put together. An incredible resource, it’s a bit like having Paul McCartney give out song writing tips at your local music venue.
The screenwriter of Go (1999), Big Fish (2003) and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) runs a site he describes as ‘a ton of useful information about screenwriting’ and he’s not wrong with that description. When you think of screenwriting gurus who charge hefty amounts for books and seminars, it’s worth noting that a successful, working screenwriter is giving away lots of useful advice for free on a regular basis. More than that, he takes time to answer reader comments and also blogs with a lot of insight about storytelling and the wider industry. It is particularly useful for those little practical details which confront the working screenwriter, be it formatting, genres or pitching. He has also created an iPad app for reading screenplays (FDX Reader) and a web browser extension (Less IMDb) that makes the movie reference site easier to navigate.
The producer of Natural Born Killers (1994), Apt Pupil (1998), From Hell (2001) and the Transformers franchise runs what appears to be a fairly old school site. But look deeper and you find some hidden treasures, such as a message board, genuinely interesting links, and some fantastic Hollywood stories. There are sections titled good guys (Michael De Luca), bad guys (Peter Biskind), fun with lawsuits (eye opening to say the least) and an archive of related stuff going back to 1997. You can also make him happy by sending him the front page of the LA Times from June 18th 1952.
The successful US indie producer (American Splendor, In The Bedroom) has been an active blogger and Twitter user at a time of great turmoil and change for the independent sector. Part of that is down to the challenges facing filmmakers and distributors in a world where old economic models have been disrupted by new technologies and the financial crisis. His previous blog has now moved over to IndieWire and is a good place to visit to find out what the future of the industry might look like, as the ideas and debates he encourages may filter through to the mainstream.
If you have any other examples of filmmakers using the web in interesting ways, then leave them below.
Does the expensive folly of Green Lantern mark the end of an era for super-expensive comic book movies?
Over the last decade Hollywood studios fully realised the commercial potential of bringing famous comic characters to the big screen.
Whilst Superman (1978) and Batman (1989) were big hits, ever since 2000 there has been a deluge of Marvel and DC characters at multiplexes.
The commercial success of X-Men (2000) proved that, if done well, mainstream audiences were ready for what was once regarded the preserve of geeks.
When Spider-Man (2002) became a record-breaking blockbuster, the pattern for the ensuing decade was set as franchises were built and merchandising dollars flowed in.
A generation who grew up familiar with the original characters embraced seeing them on the big screen with modern visual effects, as what once seemed goofy now became spectacular.
Out of this period came some well-crafted genre films, such as X-Men 2 (2003) and Spider-Man 2 (2004), along with some instant clunkers like Catwoman (2004) and Elektra (2005).
It even resulted in the previously unthinkable when The Dark Knight (2008) not only became a critical and commercial success, but was even talked of as a Best Picture contender.
But the summer of 2008 may in retrospect have been when a certain plateau was reached, as Christoper Nolan’s Batman sequel (which embraced an unusually realistic feel for the genre) became a genuine box-office and cultural phenomenon.
Predictably, the major studios green lit another wave of comic book adaptations, resulting this summer in Thor, X-Men: First Class and Captain America later this summer.
Which brings us to Green Lantern.
To actually see this in a multiplex with a paying audience (as I did) was quite an experience.
Not because it is good (it is pretty bad), or because it is an all-out fiasco on the level of Catwoman (it isn’t quite that either).
But because as I was watching it unfold, it started to seem fascinatingly bad given the gargantuan sums of money that were spent on it.
For starters, how much name recognition does the Green Lantern character actually have outside the comic book realm?
I know studios are running out of iconic names so fast that they are making reboots and team-up movies, but Green Lantern is probably best known for being easily confused with The Green Hornet.
Directed by Martin Campbell, the resulting film is a sloppy mish-mash of superhero tropes, in which a maverick fighter pilot (Ryan Reynolds) is granted special powers through a ring given to him by a dying alien warrior.
He then has to prevent a mysterious being from destroying large chunks of the galaxy (including Earth), as well as dealing with his former fighter pilot/businesswoman girlfriend (Blake Lively) and a rogue scientist with a silly moustache and large forehead (Peter Sarsgaard).
Opening with a baffling prologue that sets out the film’s wider universe, it races between set-pieces on earth and outer space, in which we essentially see the same old superhero crap.
A reckless protagonist gains powers which teach him to be humble; a glamourous female lead who is just there to be rescued; a father and son sub-plot involving Oedipal rage; mentor characters who don’t have any faith in their new student; and lots of visual effects which are just there to make fanboys go “awesome”.
But watching all this again, it felt like the law of diminishing returns had finally caught up with the genre.
Part of the Green Lantern’s powers are that he can make any object providing his ‘will’ is strong enough, which means in a fight he can produce swords and machine guns.
But when he produced what looked like a big, comedy fist I really thought the filmmakers and effects guys were just having a laugh.
Added to that is way in which CGI is integrated with the live action. Yes, it is a fantasy, but did it have to look so goofy?
Four credited screenwriters (Greg Berlanti, Michael Green, Marc Guggenheim and Michael Goldenberg) is never a good sign and there are scenes that smack of rewrites and reshoots (especially one during the climax, which feels laughably out of place).
Finke reports that Warner Bros marketing saw the finished film “extremely late in the game” and that they “didn’t have access to more than 70% of the finished movie until two weeks ago”.
If true, this might explain why the studio has spent $100 million dollars on a late marketing blitz (expensive even for a blockbuster) in the hope that people turn up this weekend.
Whilst the deserved bad reviews (23% on Rotten Tomatoes and a 40 score on Metacritic) will only have a marginal effect on box office, it is hard for a wide release like this (it opens at 3,816 US cinemas this weekend) to actually have a bad opening, as mainstream audiences generally go to see the next big tentpole release.
But when a Warner Bros executive reportedly says: “I’m not going to tell you this is the greatest movie” when the studio have spent around $300 million dollars to make and market it, something has gone badly wrong.
If it ultimately turns out to be a disaster for the studio, and let’s not assume it will be a commercial flop, could it stem the long term tide of big budget comic-book films?
Next summer sees The Dark Knight Rises and The Avengers, directed by Nolan and Joss Whedon respectively, and they will probably turn out to be major hits, even though it will almost certainly be Nolan’s last Batman movie.
And then of course there is Zack Snyder’s Superman reboot, Man of Steel, which comes just a few years after the perceived commercial disappointment of Bryan Singer’s Superman Returns (2006).
Thor and X-Men: First Class earlier this summer actually turned out pretty well (despite my early reservations about both), although the latter is perceived to have underperformed commercially given the unexpectedly positive reviews it got.
But why do I sense that superhero fatigue has set in?
One theory is that the recession has hit the 16-34 demographic that traditionally spends money watching these films.
Conversely, the surprising commercial success of The Social Network, Black Swan and True Grit last autumn might hint that the studios have underestimated the box office potential of more discerning viewers.
Is it just because all the good characters and story lines have been exhausted, or have executives got lazy in assuming mainstream audiences automatically care about films based on comic books or graphic novels?
Time will ultimately tell, but when you see gargantuan amounts of money wasted on a major release like this you wonder if an era is slowly crumbling before our eyes.
A loving homage to the early work of Steven Spielberg, Super 8Â mixes genres to create an unusual but enjoyable summer movie experience.
Set in Ohio during 1979, it tells the story of a teenage boy named Joe (Joel Courtney) and his group of friends who accidentally discover strange things happening in their small town whilst making a movie using a Super 8 camera.
After witnessing a spectacular train crash, quickly covered up by the US army, Joe has to deal with his lawman father (Kyle Chandler), his filmmaking buddies led by Charles (Riley Griffiths), a classmate named Alice (Elle Fanning), and a series of increasingly mysterious events.
In a summer filled with remakes and sequels, this singular project sees director J.J Abrams blend his love for the original series of The Twilight Zone with the Spielberg films that enchanted him as a young man.
For a major studio like Paramount, this is an unlikely summer tent-pole release as it isnât based on a pre-existing property (or is it?) and there are no star names attached.
The end result is an entertaining love letter to the era in which Abrams grew up but also to the movies and TV shows which inspired him to become a storyteller.
Whilst the bedrock is a coming-of-age tale, it also mixes sci-fi and family drama with the kind of mystery and wonder that Abrams and Spielberg have both specialised in during their careers in film and television.
Spielberg is a producer on the film and reportedly had significant creative input into the script and final movie (it is even co-produced under his iconic Amblinâ banner), which is kind of like Paul McCartney teaming up with a Beatles tribute band.
Indeed, Super 8 is so intentionally marinated in Spielberg tropes that it is almost difficult to categorise.
Is it a homage? A cinematic mashup? Perhaps one analogy would be to say that it is a filmic remix of Spielbergâs greatest hits by Abrams.
It certainly draws deeply from Spielbergâs early blockbusters but also on other films he wrote and produced in that period when he established himself as Hollywoodâs boy wonder.
Like Jaws (1975), it deals with a sinister threat to a small town; like Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977), ordinary people are caught up in extraordinary events; like E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982), innocent children are contrasted against guilty adults; like Poltergeist (1982), a family struggles against dark, underground forces and like The Goonies (1985), a band of friends bond on an adventure.
(Spielberg fans will have fun spotting many other little details and references to his work)
Some people might level the accusation that Abrams and Spielberg have combined to just rip off and revisit the latterâs movies, but it is to their credit that they have actually crafted something new, whilst remaining respectful to those original works.
Perhaps the neatest trick of Super 8 is that it remembers that despite their spectacle, Spielbergâs early films had a rich vein of emotion that flowed from memorable characters.
Opening with an scene of eloquent sadness, the film is grounded in real life and even if some fantastical things later happen, it is all about how these events affect the characters and their relationships.
A good deal of this comes from the two young actors who anchor this film brilliantly.
Newcomer Joel Courtney has just the right amount of innocence and spirit in what is essentially the lead role, whilst his chemistry with Elle Fanning is both believable and charming.
She too is really quite something, conveying complex emotions with an ease rare for actors her age. One sequence early on, as she rehearses a scene for the Super 8 film-within-the-film, has shades of Naomi Wattsâ audition in Mulholland Drive (2001).
The other actors round out the film nicely, with Riley Griffiths, Zach Mills, Gabriel Basso and Ryan Lee making up an engaging patchwork of friends and budding filmmakers.
In the token adult roles, Kyle Chandler as Joeâs police officer father and Toby Emmerich as the military commander are OK without bringing the house down, but perhaps thatâs a by product of having so much focus on the kids.
It is also worth noting that for all his obsession with sci-fi spectacle Abrams (like early Spielberg) is deft at handling the little character touches, whether it be an extra talking on a payphone or revealing background visual details.
His recent reboot of Star Trek (2009)Â worked wonderfully because of this kind of attention to character and place and the same is true of Super 8.
The production design, cinematography and tone are all remarkably authentic to the vibe of the period and DP Larry Fong creates widescreen images that seem to curb his director’s occasional instincts to frame the action like heâs still working in television.
Ben Burttâs sound design is also very effective, especially during the action set-pieces, which simultaneously keeps things real whilst also giving certain scenes a requisite fantastical lift.
One major caveat is that the visual effects sometimes feel overdone for key scenes, but that could be a case of the production needing to spend its allocated budget.
This is especially true as the film enters its final act and the compulsion to introduce big set-pieces threatens to drown out the carefully constructed tone of the film.
But even here Abrams deploys his secret weapon in composer Michael Giacchino, who is fast becoming one of the best of his generation after establishing himself with TV shows such as Lost and winning awards for his work on Pixar movies like Up.
As you might expect his work here deliberately channels Spielbergâs regular composer John Williams, but he also manages to weave in his own blend of melodies, which give the final sequences a special emotional kick.
It is difficult to discuss much of the plot without giving away spoilers, but despite some problems with the latter stages, it was very hard not to exit the film smiling.
Some might feel this whole project is simply an exercise in nostalgia, but it manages to be more than just a retread of Spielbergâs work by tapping in to the essence of what made them successful.
By mining the magic of a previous era, Super 8 reminds us that the simple pleasures of summer movies, like character and emotion, are often the most rewarding.
Super 8 is out now in the US and opens in the UK on Friday 5th August
Jodie Fosterâs first film as a director in 16 years is a curious drama laced with surreal comedy.
Opening with the depressed head of a toy company (Mel Gibson) being kicked out of the family home by his wife (Foster, who also stars) and explores how he seemingly turns his life around by talking to people through a beaver hand puppet.
Loved ones and co-workers are bemused but initially welcome him back, with the exception of his angry teenage son (Anton Yelchin), who strikes up a relationship with a classmate (Jennifer Lawrence) who also has issues of her own.
Kyle Killenâs script was hot property back in 2008 and part of the appeal might have been the way it mixes a striking concept within a conventional setting, whilst providing a showy lead role for the central character (Steve Carrell was attached early on).
The resulting production had a rocky joureny to cinemas, as a much publicised voicemail scandal involving its star (on the back of other well-documented problems) led to its release being delayed by several months.
With this all in mind there is poignancy to the finished film, as the parallels between Gibson and his character are painfully apparent.
But if you put all that pre-release baggage to one side, how does the finished film stand up?
It turns out that the film isnât bad at all and has surprising levels of emotion if one treats it as a drama, which happens to be sprinkled with humour.
Gibson gives a surprisingly nuanced performance in the lead role, which is no mean feat given that for most of the film heâs talking like Ray Winstone through a hand puppet (for some reason, the beaver has a British accent).
This leads to some bizarre scenes that strain credibility, but given his position of power at work and the relief of his loved ones to have him back home, it just about works.
The scenes where Gibsonâs character talks through his puppet actually work pretty well, given that they could have been utterly ridiculous.
In the supporting roles, Foster convinces as an exhausted but loving wife, whilst Yelchin and Lawrence do their best with teenage roles that feel a little underwritten.
Although she hasnât directed in a long time (her last film was 1995âs Home for the Holidays), Foster has mixes the contrasting tones in a way that you donât often see with Hollywood productions.
The tasteful widescreen lensing by DP Hagen Bogdanski (who also shot The Lives of Others) gives it a nice visual polish and the slick editing by Lynzee Klingman keeps things moving well, whilst skilfully intercutting the main plot of the father with the parallel subplot of the son.
On film, the mentally ill are often depicted as either psychotic killers (e.g. Psycho) or underdog geniuses (e.g. Rain Man) but to her credit Foster avoids these cliches, focusing with a good deal of empathy on how regular families grapple with the pain and uncertainty of having a loved one suffering from a psychological ailment.
Furthermore, it floats the idea that traditionally accepted treatments might not work for everyone, which contrasts with films which routinely dish out the subtext that everything will be OK in the end.
Not everything works here. Two significant strikes against the film are Marcelo Zavrosâ jaunty score, which belongs in another film entirely, and a key plot development late on which feels too melodramatic.
As I write this, The Beaver has died a death at the US box office, which suggests Gibson and Foster are no longer the box office stars they were and that audiences were baffled by the story and tone.
Parts of the preview audience I saw it with seemed to be laughing at certain scenes in a derisory way (never a good sign), but to sneer at this film (as some may do), is to ignore its empathetic heart, even if in places it doesnât fully work.
Some of the influences here appear to be Magic (1978), the drama starring Anthony Hopkins as a ventriloquist and American Beauty (1999), with its dissection of suburban angst.
One recent film it closely resembles is Lars and the Real Girl (2007), which also featured a troubled, yet sympathetic, lead character with a bizarre fixation.
Like that film it may struggle to find a wide audience, but if you are prepared to go with it, The Beaver is a film with unusual depths that lie beneath its goofy premise.
These different trailers for Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining (1980) give an interesting glimpse of how different eras perceive a film.
After the commercial disappointment of Barry Lyndon (1975), Kubrick wanted to do something with a bit more box office potential.
An adaptation of a Stephen King novel with a big star (Jack Nicholson) seemed to be a way of combining his interests as a director with the opportunity for a hit movie.
We can see part of this journey in how The Shining has been depicted in various trailers down the years.
Before the original US release in May 1980 there was this creepy teaser, which used the now famous image of blood coming out of an elevator.
The mood and mysterious tone kept users guessing, whilst cleverly using one of the signature shots.
On its release in the UK a few months later, Warner Bros were probably disappointed at the patchy reception in the US.
This recently unearthed UK TV spot reveals a lot more, but the inclusion of a still featuring Jack Nicholson’s grin (different from those used in other marketing materials) makes me wonder if the publicity department was having an off day when they approved this.
Kubrick then made a number of cuts to the film (around 25 minutes worth) before it opened in London and it seems initial audiences were baffled or even bored by what they saw.
The director was even nominated for a Golden Rasperry Award for Worst Director (!), which seems ridiculous now but perhaps speaks to its gradual appeal.
Part of that was down to screenings of the film on television and video during the 1980s, as it gathered a new audience who could appreciate its unusual style and considered approach.
This trailer for the ABC TV premiere in 1983 calls the film a ‘ultimate exercise in terror’ and cuts together some of the famous images in the film, including one scene involving skeletons dressed up at a party that was excised from the UK cut.
By now the film had ended its theatrical run, but a new audience was beginning to experience it just as the home video boom was taking off.
But why did it succeed with home audiences just three years after cinemagoers had partly rejected it?
Part of it may be down to Kubrick’s style, which doesn’t always make concessions to first time viewers and that The Shining has a special quality when you see it at home.
After all, it explores the quiet terror of being alone in a building and the ghosts of the people that may (or may not) have lived there before.
Perhaps the solitary nature of viewing it in the home suited the film better than the communal environment of the cinema.
Another technical detail worth pointing out is that it was effectively shot in the aspect ratio of 1.37, which means that although it was conceived and framed for a 1:85 theatrical release, the film was visually well suited to the squarer screens of TV and didn’t have to be pan and scanned.
“At first sight this is an extremely simple, even static film. [..] Kubrick had put so much effort into his film, building vast sets at Elstree, makÂing a 17-week shoot stretch to 46, and what was the result? A silly scare story â something that, it was remarked at the time, Roger Corman could have turned around in a fortnight. But look beyond the simplicity and the Overlook reveals itself as a palace of paradox…. Even if the drama appears straightforward, there’s the matter of the unearthly stage it’s enacted on – the hotel itself, with its extraordinary atmospherics. Hotel manager Ullman (Barry Nelson) welcomes Jack by telling him how a former caretaker, Charles Grady, went crazy and chopped up his family: the problem was cabin fever, the result of confinement in isolaÂtion. Not only do the Torrances suffer cabin fever but Kubrick wants us to as well. The Shining makes us inhabit every comer of the painstakingly conÂstructed hotel sets, and the way the film guides us along corridors, around corners, up staircases – thanks to Garrett Brown’s revolutionary new gizmo the Steadicam – makes us feel we know every inch of the place, even (especially) the sound of its silences.”
It is true that there is an unsettling power to the film which takes the viewer right inside the mysteries of a particular place, rather than focus on the struggle between an innocent protagonist and an evil monster.
After his death people began to focus less on Kubrick’s reputation as a ‘reclusive genius’ and focus more on the glory of his work, which continues to inspire a generation of filmmakers fascinated by his attention to detail and impeccable craft.
With the proliferation of cheap digital editing tools and the web, frequent homages to Kubrick appear online, but perhaps the most memorable was this 2005 reworking of the film’s trailer as a romantic comedy:
Robert Ryang, 25, a film editorâs assistant in Manhattan, graduated from Columbia three years ago with a double major in film studies and psychology. This week, he got an eye-opening lesson in both. Since 2002, Mr. Ryang has worked for one of the owners of P.S. 260, a commercial postproduction house, cutting commercials for the likes of Citizens Bank, Cingular and the TriBeCa Film Festival. A few weeks back, he said, he entered a contest for editorsâ assistants sponsored by the New York chapter of the Association of Independent Creative Editors. The challenge? Take any movie and cut a new trailer for it â but in an entirely different genre. Only the sound and dialogue could be modified, not the visuals, he said. Mr. Ryang won the contest, and about 10 days ago, he said, he sent three friends a link to a âsecret siteâ on his companyâs Web site where they could watch his entry. One of them, Mr. Ryang said, posted it on his little-watched blog. And that was that. Until this week, when he was hit by a tsunami of Internet interest. On Wednesday, Mr. Ryang said, his secret site got 12,000 hits. By Thursday the numbers were even higher, his film was being downloaded and linked to on countless other sites, it had cracked the top 10 most popular spoofs on www.ifilm.com, and a vice president at a major Hollywood studio had called up his office, scouting for new talent.
The video has since been seen over 3 million times on YouTube.
By 2008 Kubrick’s status as a legend was complete and when UK channel More 4 screened a season of his films that summer, this trail was a wonderful homage to the making of The Shining:
Over the course of nearly thirty years, the reputation of Kubrick’s horror has grown. But what kind of trailer would Warner Bros cut for the film today?
The fact that The Shining still resonates, after the chilly reception in 1980, through numerous showings on TV and home video, is a testament its enduring power.
Asif Kapadia’s documentary about the life and career of Ayrton Senna is a riveting portrait of the F1 driver.
Using only archive footage alongside voiceover contributions from those who knew and wrote about him, it constructs a compelling story of a sporting icon.
Beginning with his early career in Europe, it charts his rapid ascent to Formula One where he joined the McLaren team in the late 1980s and quickly established himself as a precocious rival to reigning world champion Alain Prost.
Exploring his extraordinary feats on the track and the joy his three world titles brought to his native Brazil, it then covers his tragic early death at the San Marino Grand Prix in 1994.
With judicious use of archive footage, which really comes alive on the big screen, it also covers the murkier politics off the track with former FIA boss Jean-Marie Balestre coming across as another rival to be beaten.
Although this will be devoured by motor racing fans, it also works as a fascinating introduction for those who know little or nothing about Senna and his impact on the sport.
Part of what makes it so exciting is his life story, which whilst not a rags-to-riches tale (he was from a wealthy Brazilian family), feels like the subject of an epic novel filled with memorable touches.
His iconic yellow helmet, loving and devoted parents, faith in God, millions he donated to charity, glamorous girlfriends and the driving skills which established him as one of the greatest racing drivers of all time are just some of the rich details which make up the story.
Assembled from hours of footage from various broadcasters and the F1 archives, the editing is frequently inspired, providing an unusual level of excitement for a documentary.
At one point we see some especially prophetic comments from Prost (“Ayrton Senna has a small problem, he thinks he canât kill himself because he believes in God and I think that is very dangerous for other driversâ) as well as footage from family home videos.
Some of the internal F1 videos of driver meetings are an eye-opening glimpse into the world of a dangerous sport and Sennaâs pleas for more safety add to the tragic irony of his untimely demise.
There are also astute voiceover contributions from journalist Richard Williams, F1 doctor Sid Watkins and racing commentators GalvĂŁo Bueno and John Bisignano which explain and illuminate his impact on the sport and his home country.
For director Asif Kapadia this marks a change from his previous feature films (such as The Warrior and Far North) but he seems to have a natural feel for the drama of real life and of the intense highs which sport can deliver to both participants and fans.
A subtle but atmospheric use of music augments the film nicely and the use of internal F1 footage of the drivers observing the horrific accidents during that fateful weekend in 1994 brings a new perspective to what would be a turning point the sport as a whole, as major safety changes were brought in following the crash that killed Senna and Roland Ratzenberger.
Although the exact cause of Senna’s crash at Imola still remains a mystery, it seems an unlikely confluence of events was ultimately to blame: the new rules imposed on the Williams car that season, an engineering fault, a previous crash at the start of the race and bad luck in how the car actually crashed on impact.
On paper this might sound like a film just for devoted F1 fans, but perhaps its greatest achievement lies in how it not only makes the races truly thrilling but finds universality in the details of a sportsman’s life.
After scoring major buzz at Sundance earlier this year, Universal and Working Title will be quietly confident that it finds a deserving audience hungry for engaging factual entertainment.
With the summer movie season fuelled by comic book fantasy, Senna provides a welcome injection of real-life drama and excitement.
The Marvel franchise finds new energy and charm with a stylish 1960s period setting, well staged action and fine performances from an impressive ensemble cast.
Opening with the same scene as the 2000 film, an extended prologue explores the formative years of Erik Lehnsherr (Michael Fassbender), Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and Raven Darkholme (Jennifer Lawrence), as they discover their special powers.
Moving forward to the early 1960s, we see how the original X-Men group come together as a CIA agent (Rose Byrne) recruits Xavier and a team of mutants to help them fight the mysterious Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon), who seeks to exploit Cold War tensions for his own gain.
Along the way they recruit Lehnsherr (for whose deeply personal reasons for joining the mission) and several other mutants (Nicholas Hoult, Caleb Landry Jones and Zoë Kravitz), whilst Shaw has his own team of cohorts (including January Jones, Jason Flemyng).
The most striking thing about the film is the way it erases the bad memories of the shambolic Wolverine prequel â X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) – and the unsatisfactory third film â X-Men: The Last Stand (2006) â which both suffered from the absence of director Bryan Singer (who went off to do Superman Returns instead).
He was back on board as producer here and although the screenplay is credited to four writers, director Matthew Vaughn wisely taps into the vibe of Singerâs first film, which effectively blended issues, emotions and action.
That in turn reflected the original comics, which were forged in the social tumult of the 1960s, so there is something appropriate about seeing these characters brought to the screen in the decade which gave birth to them.
Despite the large ensemble cast, the heart of this film is the relationship between Eric (the future Magneto) and Charles (the future Professor X) and the casting of Fassbender and McAvoy is inspired.
Making the roles their own, they bring surprising levels of gravitas and emotion to their superhero bromance, elevating the material above most comic book adaptations and providing a solid foundation for the wider story.
The supporting cast is also good, with Lawrence (as the future Mystique) standing out in particular and there is a nice smattering of veteran actors from genre movies in cameo roles, including Rade Serbedzija, Ray Wise, Michael Ironside and James Remar.
Moving at a healthy pace, the story takes its cues from classic Bond, with globe-trotting action set-pieces linked to a narrative involving a super-villain, which ends up in a climactic showdown.
Although the action and visuals are handled well, it says a great deal about the film that the most effective thing is the relationships that lie at the heart of the film.
The villains are a little one note at times (especially January Jones) and Bacon too much like a Bond villain for comfort.
But overall the conflicts are well played, whilst the ethical dilemas of the mutants (should they join or fight a suspicious society?) hover effectively in the background.
It doesnât approach the heights of X-Men 2 (2003), still the best of the series, but fans of the franchise might notice the narrative parallels between this prequel and Singerâs first two films: a rouge outsider joins forces with other mutants to fight a common enemy; and opposing mutants band together despite their differences.
My main reservation plot wise was something that happens at the climax (which I canât reveal for spoiler reasons), suffice to say that a particular character develops a bit too early.
The period detail is impressive, although in keeping with a stylised fantasy version of the 60s, and the production design effectively channels the Cold War era, with films such as Dr. Strangelove (1964) and You Only Live Twice (1968) being a marked influences on the design.
There is a distinct influence of Mad Men in the air with casting of Jones, the 1960s setting and the resulting costumes, although it never overpowers the material itself.
Blending the Bond influence with the events of Cuban missile crisis also feels appropriate given how often 007âs adventures were inspired by Cold War intrigue.
As you might expect for a film of this scale, the production design, costumes and visual effects are impressive, although at times (especially the climax) the CGI is a little over used.
Plus, for a film so faithful to the original trilogy there appears to be a continuity error so glaring, Iâm assuming it must be deliberate (email me for further details, as it is firmly in spoiler territory).
In an age of prequels, sequels and remakes, perhaps the best thing about X-Men First Class is that it feels like a fresh spin on the comic book formula.
There is enough here for both the mass audience and experienced comic book geeks to enjoy (one âEaster Eggâ cameo is sure to bring the house down).
When this project was first announced, it seemed like Fox was just rehashing a cash-cow franchise, but credit must go to the studio for trusting filmmakers to revisit the essence of the original comics and translate them into a deeply satisfying summer movie.
It contains familiar ingredients but the third film from writer-director Thomas McCarthy is a satisfying comedy-drama with brains and heart.
Set in New Jersey, it explores the ethical dilemmas of local attorney Mike Flaherty (Paul Giamatti), who also coaches a high-school wrestling team.
With his law practice struggling due to the recession, Mike keeps his worries from his wife (Amy Ryan) and two young daughters.
When an opportunity arises involving an elderly client (Burt Young) and his teenage grandson Kyle (Alex Shaffer), Mike sees a potential solution to his problems.
Similar in tone to McCarthy’s previous efforts – The Station Agent (2003) and The Visitor (2008) – the film explores the bittersweet comedy that lies under the surface of everyday life.
The main draw here is Giamatti and the actor fits the material perfectly, managing to convey the light and shade of a good man caught in a bad situation.
It is perhaps his most significant role since Sideways (2004) and it’s a relief to see him in a lead role after the usual supporting turns he gets burdened with in bigger budget films.
The other stand out is Shaffer, a non-actor making his screen debut, who is note-perfect as an awkward teenage wrestling prodigy.
Solid support comes from Amy Ryan as his tough but supportive wife, Jeffrey Tambor and Bobby Canavale as Mike’s friends and fellow wrestling coaches, and Melanie Lynskey as Kyle’s absent mother.
The humour of Mike’s interaction with his friends and family is wrapped up with an unusual empathy for regular, small town life that is rare in the indie or mainstream realm.
Although the plot takes a while to get going in the conventional sense, but the slow-burn build up pays off well as it reaches its latter stages.
Contemporary New Jersey is evoked with impressive attention to detail: the legal office, gyms and houses are all convincingly realised.
Perhaps most impressively, Win Win does the simple things (acting, writing and direction) so well that you don’t really notice them until after the story has reached its surprising climax and payoff.
It may have the familiar tropes of a US indie movie made inside the studio system after premiering at Sundance, Fox Searchlight are releasing it.
But with the avalanche of sequels, remakes and empty romantic comedies currently hitting cinemas, a film like Win Win feels like an especially rare treat.
Listen out too for âThink You Can Winâ, a moving song by The National which the US band wrote especially for the film.
Part of the reason was that the only images shocked viewers could compare them to were scenes of fictional destruction from various disaster movies of the 1990s.
Films such as Independence Day (1996), Deep Impact (1998) and Armageddon (1998) imagined fantastical scenarios where iconic symbols of American power, such as the White House, were spectacularly destroyed by aliens or asteroids.
But by far the most prescient film of this era was The Siege (1998), a drama which imagined a scenario where New York is hit by a wave of terror attacks after an elusive, Islamic radical is captured by the US military.
Directed by Ed Zwick, it explored the dilemas facing an FBI special agent (Denzel Washington), a CIA agent (Annette Benning) and an army general (Bruce Willis) as martial law is declared in a major American city.
Picking up on the anxieties of the Clinton era, after the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, The Siege explored the ethical choices facing law enforcement when confronted by a ruthless, suicidal enemy.
A box office failure on its initial release, it also resulted in a wave of protests from organisations, such as the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, who felt that it unfairly demonised Muslims.
Even though Zwick engaged with Arab-Americans early in the production of the film, he opted not to soften the depiction of the terrorists in the film.
One sequence, in which a bus is blown up purely for the TV spectacle it will create, seemed tame in comparison with what actually happened three years later, with the destruction of the Twin Towers beamed live around the globe.
The Siege isn’t by any means a classic film, even in retrospect, but it was made by serious people with their finger firmly on the pulse of dangers posed by radicalised terrorists.
Looking back on it now, it managed to predict a devastating terrorist attack in New York, a disturbing military response, persecution and profiling of people based on their race and the torture of suspects.
Seeing the original posters for the film, it is hard not to feel an eerie twinge with their use of the Twin Towers and the Brooklyn Bridge.
The same chill is evoked when Bruce Willis’ army general gives a speech declaring martial law against the backdrop of the Manhattan skyline:
In 2009, I asked Zwick about how he looked back on the film from a post-9/11 perspective and he said that he was just picking up on issues that were in the air:
“I wasn’t being prophetic. I was listening to people whose job is to know those things. I felt there was some inevitability that I was keying in to. But when I look at certain aspects of the film that we imagined – the rounding up of people and interrogations and torture – we were tapping in to something that was there to be mined but no-one else was willing to talk about yet. There were many people, in any number of cultures, that were already quite desperately concerned with [terrorism] but it somehow hadn’t found its way in to the popular imagination”
It took several years for mainstream films to explicitly deal with 9/11, in dramas such as World Trade Center (2006) and United 93 (2006), whilst documentaries such as Taxi to the Darkside (2007) and No End in Sight (2007) examined aspects of the wars unleashed by the attacks.
But in the light of bin Laden’s death this week, The Siege retains a strange relevance, which is odd for a film made in 1998 by a major studio (Fox).
The opening sequence depicts an operation in which US special forces capture and imprison a shadowy figure, who appears to be based on the late Al-Qaeda leader.
This is the reverse of what happened last Sunday when Navy SEALS broke into his compound in Pakistan and shot him in the head.
Even in death, bin Laden has provoked more discussion and earlier this week Lawrence Wright spoke to NPR about what his killing may signify:
Let’s apply that logic to current events.
In Wright’s 1998 movie version, the capture of a wanted terrorist leads to reprisal attacks which further divide America.
Now in 2011, could The Siege continue to have a chilling relevance in a post-bin Laden world?
It may not be a high point for the art of cinema but why has the latest instalment of the Fast and Furious franchise tapped into a huge global audience?
The first film in the series, The Fast and the Furious (2001), quietly worked its way to a global gross of $207m on a budget of $38m.
But when star Vin Diesel and director Rob Cohen didn’t return for the ridiculously titled 2 Fast 2 Furious (2003) I think the perception was that the franchise was basically over.
After all, Diesel (then seen to be an emerging star) and Rob Cohen had gone on to make xXx (2002) which was a significant action hit.
But although the second film suffered from the perception that its main star had left, Universal’s accountants would have been impressed at the $236m worldwide gross on a budget of $76m.
This was enough for a third film called The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006), which didn’t feature Paul Walker or Vin Diesel (even though the latter had a small cameo).
Despite the presence of a new director (Justin Lin) it seemed that the series was running on fumes. But it still grossed $158m worldwide on a budget of $85m.
By now the franchise was that strangest of things: a successful film series without a main character or star that was still making money.
In contrast, by 2006 Diesel’s star had diminished with the critical and commercial disappointments of The Chronicles of Riddick (2004) and Babylon A.D. (2008).
So when a fourth film appeared called Fast & Furious (2009) it marked something very unusual.
Director Justin Lin returned but more significantly Walker and Diesel came back, which meant that we essentially had a reboot of the franchise within the confines of the series.
Back in 2009, Lin told me that the idea for the fourth film came from the enormous crowd reaction to Diesel’s cameo at the end of the third film.
Diesel was initially very reluctant to return but once he was persuaded the film was basically like a reunion of the original, with Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriguez and Jordana Brewster reprising their roles.
The result was a massive global hit as it grossed $359m on a $85m budget, making it a rare success in a barren period of costly commercial failures for Universal (e.g. Green Zone, Robin Hood, Public Enemies).
Now we have a fifth film, which has actually has three different titles Fast & Furious 5, Fast & Furious 5: Rio Heist and Fast Five.
Made for $125m it basically combines the comedy-heist tone of the Ocean’s trilogy with the slickly edited car-chase thrills of the previous films in the Fast & Furious series.
Despite the surfeit of titles the global opening for the film has been stunning, earning $165m worldwide.
The US opening weekend of $86m made it the biggest opening weekend in Universal’s history, beating The Lost World‘s opening weekend of $72m back in 1997.
I think a lot of people in the industry have been taken aback by the success of the latest film.
After all, by the fifth film in a franchise, things are usually getting a little stale. Even Universal chairman Adam Fogelson sounded surprised, telling Deadline:
“Here’s what I’m most proud of: there is nothing obvious about what happened. No one can say of course every single decision how it was going to be made, how it was going to be cast, when it was going to be dated, how it was going to be sold, was very strategically thought out. There is no reason for the 5th movie in a franchise to have pulled off what this pulled off”
But what has made it the biggest opening of 2011?
I would make no claims for the film being any good, but after seeing the film on the weekend with an audience I realised there are some reasons as to why people have embraced it.
Old school thrills: With cartoons (Rio, Hop) and comic book franchises (Thor) flooding the multiplexes, a film with old-fashioned car chases and action set-pieces involving fist-fights and gun fire stands out. This current film pulls the tried and tested Bond trick of plunging the audience in to an action sequence. Plus, although some of the sequences defy the laws of physics, the mix of CGI and live action is cleverly done, making it feel more real than the CGI landscapes of animated films or fantasy blockbusters.
Surprising across-the-board appeal: If you look at the cast there is a surprising amount of gender and ethnic diversity in the ensemble cast. There is even a vaguely homoerotic quality to certain scenes: Diesel’s extended fight with The Rock has shades of Bates and Reed fighting in Women in Love) and the relationship between Diesel and Walker’s character has shades of Maverick and Iceman in Top Gun. Even the pregnancy of a character (not normally a staple of action films) gives it an emotional resonance for female audiences, amidst all the testosterone. This means that it hits buttons for a wider audience than I think people give it credit for.
The series successfully rebooted itself: The strangeness of the franchise lies with the fact that it was reborn with the fourth film. But this has given it a new lease of life, so Fast Five feels more like a second film than a fifth film. It feels fresher than it actually is and has the added bonus of familiarity with an audience who caught the originals on DVD.
It resonates during a recession: With this film Walker’s cop has become a criminal but the gang is a nice bunch we root for like Robin Hood (ironically more than the flat Robin Hood film from last year). The villain is a swarthy, rich businessman exploiting the poor, whilst even the elite cop (played by The Rock) pursuing the gang comes to realise their ‘honour’. Why do I get the feeling that evil bankers will be the villains of the next film?
Good time group vibes: Driving around in cars, cracking jokes with friends and duping rich people are appealing real-world fantasies for audiences to digest and respond to. Going to the cinema, audiences feel like they are part of this diverse and tightly-knit gang. The sequence where they all race police cars is ridiculous (I’m sure the Rio police don’t allow their cars to be stolen that easily) but it plays to a male boy-racer fantasy. Plus, it is a lot more relatable than a Nordic god with a mystical hammer.
Intriguingly, the film finishes with a post-credits scene (similar to the recent Marvel films) which not only hints at a follow up film but suggests that this is a world that audiences are hungry for.
How does news about a fake Sofia Coppola film spread on the web?
Pretty quickly as it turns out.
First, The Playlist (usually one of the better film news sites) spots what appeared to be the official Twitter account of American Zoetrope (Coppola’s usual production company) which ‘announced‘:
Happy to announce that Kirsten Dunst has agreed to be in Sofia Coppola’s new film ‘Secret Door’. Script is still being finished. Stay tuned!
However, it turned out that it was probably a hoax account. (Note that this was the only tweet on the account and it doesn’t appear to be linked to Zoetrope’s official site).
The very idea of Coppola (or someone at Zoetrope) uploading part of her screenplay to the web and then announcing it to the world on Twitter seems highly unlikely to me.
There also appeared to be no mention of the story from trade sites such as Variety, The Hollywood Reporter or Deadline (although searching on the traditional trades made me think they need to hire someone to build a more usable archive).
“Sorry, Coppola fans, looks like weâve been had by a hoaxer. When we ran the story yesterday, the account looked genuine enough, but subsequent tweets were more suspicious, in particular 8 pages of script âleakedâ onto the account, 8 pages of some of the worst writing weâve ever seen (Sample: âIt was he, I pondered most ofâ). With the legitimacy looking increasingly fishy, itâs now been confirmed that the account is a fake. Weâre not quite sure who has the goddamn time to write a script pretending to be Sofia Coppola, but there we go. Apologies”
But a quick Google News search reveals that many sites picked up the original, uncorrected version of the story:
Itâs extremely tough to write a news article when all the details are being kept secret.
Quite.
But this whole affair does raise some interesting questions.
Does bad news stick, even if quickly corrected?
You could argue that the crowd-sourcing nature of sites like Twitter and Facebook, helped to quickly flag this as being a false story and that sites can quickly admit to honest errors (which in this case happened).
But are parts of the web just an unthinking copy-and-paste machine?
With large site owners like AOL relentlessly pressing for page views, maybe writers will find it hard to resist quickly feeding readers a diet of stories, which don’t always completely check out.
Can traditional outlets devoted to accuracy, like the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, edit and fact check for several days? Probably not. There is some kind of balance to be struck, but the line seems blurry.
What strikes me from the fake Sofia Coppola movie is the slippery nature of information on the web and the ease with which it was absorbed into the news cycle.
Think about it. Someone actually took the time to create a fake Twitter account for a production company, write 8 pages of screenplay and, presumably, alert some websites of it.
Like a cyber-pinball, that false information rattles around blogs, social media and possibly printed outlets too.
For a long time no-one was really sure if I’m Still Here was actually depicting Joaquin Phoenix having a real meltdown or spoofing how the media were covering a fake one.
Although only a small fraction of the films total audience would have seen them, they presumably wanted to monitor reactions to the mystery surrounding the film, as well use the enigma of the film as a marketing tool.
It would strike me as odd if Coppola and Zoetrope actually did start an official Twitter feed on which to make announcements and maybe after this fake story they should, just to get their official voice out there.
But let’s go further down the rabbit hole.
Could it be conceivable that Sofia Coppola and American Zoetrope hired some kind of viral marketing guru to create a fake movie called ‘The Secret Door’?
Personally I don’t think so, but if they did would the poster look something like this?
Although I should stress the above image isn’t real, perhaps this whole episode highlights the immediacy of information in the modern age and how it might be used (or abused) by individuals, studios and filmmakers in the future.
Could some digital prankster actually make a fake Sofia Coppola movie, imitating her visual style, recreating marketing materials on Photoshop and then upload it to YouTube?
Since the rise of the web in the mid-to-late 90s, films like The Matrix (1999), Avatar (2009) and Inception (2010) have played around with the idea of ‘dual realities’.
But maybe they, the current batch of ‘fake documentaries’ and even a non-existent project like ‘The Secret Room’ also signify a growing cultural trend.
As we read our web connected devices aren’t we experiencing an uncertain virtual world, as we cautiously rely on information reproduced over a vast, digital echo chamber?
According to the film’s sales agent Summit, the barebones story is:
“the tale of a Texas boy’s journey from the innocence of childhood to his disillusioned adult years as a ‘lost soul in the modern world’, and his quest to regain meaning in life”.
Whatever, the finished result the anticipation of a Malick film starring Brad Pitt, Sean Penn with Emmanuel Lubezki as DP has cineastes rightly excited.
But what is the sequence involving dinosaurs all about?
When VFX Supervisor Dan Glass gave a fairly detailed interview to Little White Lies about his work on the film, it was promptly taken down (presumably at the request of the producers and distributors) as he may have violated a non-disclosure agreement.
But traces of it remain online and he essentially confirmed that there would be dinosaurs in the film and that Malick had incorporated notes and negatives he’s been working on since the 1970s (!).
As for other details, the effects shots used “extraordinary source imagery from actual probes and telescopes”, some of the film was shot in IMAX, the VFX work was done to a “very high resolution” and the music and sound are reportedly “tremendous”.
Speaking of high resolution, Fox Searchlight recently released some hi-res stills from the film on their official Tumblr blog, including a shot of the dinosaur.
But look closer here and you will find another one in the frame.
In addition to all this is the stand off between UK distributor Icon and US sales agent Summit over the release date.
“‘The information regarding the May 4th U.K. release is incorrect. Icon Film Distribution Ltd. does not have the right to distribute The Tree of Life in the U.K, as it is in default of its agreement. The matter is pending before an arbitration tribunal in Los Angeles.’
The Tree of Life may (or may not) open in the UK on May 4th and will screen at the Cannes Film Festival on May 16th before opening in the US on May 27th
One of Marvel’s most famous characters is brought to the screen with energy and charm, even though certain elements don’t quite work.
How do you adapt a character like Thor for the big screen?
One of the mainstays of Marvel comics since the 1960s, he isn’t just a man with special powers but a god from another realm.
With his costume and magical hammer he might strike younger audiences – familiar with Spider-Man, Iron Man and Batman – as an eccentric extra from the Lord of the Rings trilogy.
But Marvel Studios and director Kenneth Branagh have managed to find a way of crafting a satisfying story which not only introduces the character to a wider cinema audience, but please those who grew up reading the comics.
Opening in the New Mexico desert, astrophysicist Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), her assistant (Kat Dennings) and scientist mentor (Stellan Skarsgard) discover a stranger named Thor (Chris Hemsworth) after a mysterious storm.
In an extended flashback on the heavenly realm of Asgard, we see Thor’s ruling father Odin (Anthony Hopkins) banish his eldest son to Earth, along with his magical hammer Mjolnir (yes, it actually has a name and even a detailed Wikipedia entry).
Stranded on Earth he must deal with a curious government agent (Clark Gregg) and agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., his brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) and learn to free his hammer by being more humble.
In addition, there is also a group of his warrior friends (Jaimie Alexander, Ray Stevenson, Josh Dallas and Tadanobu Asano), the Frost Giant leader (Colm Feore) and a gatekeeper to both worlds (Idris Elba).
There is even a cameo from Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), preparing audiences for next year’s film version of The Avengers, where various Marvel characters (including Thor) team up.
Whilst at times it feels overcrowded with characters – a problem which wrecked Marvel’s Iron Man 2 – this is agreeable superhero stuff, which cuts between convincingly staged action on Earth and the fantastical realms of Asgard.
Branagh might seem an unusual choice to direct this kind of material, but his background in Shakespeare proves useful in humanising and even gently satirising the grandiose nature of the central character and the battles he fights.
He has also got decent performances from his cast: Hemsworth has presence as Thor, playing him with a nice blend of authority and humour; Hopkins and Hiddleston are solid; and the rest of the cast do their best with fairly thin roles.
There is plenty of fish-out-of-water comedy as Thor struggles with contemporary life on Earth and his chemistry with the scientists is well done, even if Portman’s role isn’t as significant as you might expect.
His fantastical battles are also well staged, with some effective sound work augmenting the CGI and lending a certain weight to scenes which could have been ridiculous.
The visual effects work must have presented a major challenge and most impressive is the magical, mechanical portal through which the characters venture from Asgard to Earth.
Less successful are the landscape shots, which – like a lot of CGI-reliant films – blend into a digital background mush, reminiscent of the Star Wars prequels.
Despite this, the overall production design by Bo Welch and the costumes by Alexandra Byrne are impressive, giving detail and believability to both realms.
An added bonus is Patrick Doyle’s rousing score which suits the mood and themes of the film perfectly, even if at times it is reminiscent of Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard’s work on the recent Batman films.
This is also the first Marvel film in 3D and although the post-conversion is better than other mainstream releases (such as Clash of the Titans) it doesn’t really add a whole lot to the action.
After a decade of superhero films, it increasingly feels that Hollywood is reaching the bottom of its comic book barrel.
A list of the major summer releases already feels like an overloaded Comic-Con schedule, with Green Lantern, Captain America and X-Men: First Class continuing what seems to be a never-ending cycle of superhero titles.
Despite this, Thor is actually a pleasant surprise. Although not on the same level as Marvel’s Iron Man or Nolan’s Batman films, but there is something pleasantly old fashioned about the way in which the Nordic god has been brought to the big screen.
Using data from three major movie websites we try to analyse how good the films have been during the first quarter of 2011.
To begin with we entered every film listed on the Wikipedia entry for 2011 in film, which means every film that has got a US release from January 1st to March 31st.
Then we checked out what score each film got on the two major review sites Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes.
To balance out critical opinion with the views of the wider cinema-going audience we also added the IMDb user rating and then combined all these scores to give each film a mark out of 100.
We had five bands which correspond to each score, marked Excellent (100-80), Good (80-60), Average (60-40), Bad (40-20) and Awful (20-0).
So, after entering all this data into a spreadsheet we came up with an average score for each film and then arranged them in ascending order:
The general picture seems to be that average films rule the roost (47%) and that good ones (25%) just about outweigh the bad (20%), three films were deemed excellent (8%) and there were no awful films.
A few points that struck me looking at the data:
With Fox Searchlight behind it, Win Win could be an early awards season contender
Jane Eyre seems to have an impressive amount of critical and user support for a period piece
Sucker Punch was reviled by the critics but has a lot more IMDb love, which suggests a younger audience dug it more
The Dilemma is something of an embarrassment for a major studio comedy with (relatively) well known actors.
It doesn’t look like there will be a Big Momma’s House 4
On a personal note I would say that Win Win and Cave of Forgotten Dreams (soon to be released in the US) are my two favourite films of the year so far.
N.B. A few notes on the data.
We used US release dates as it was a mess trying to track 2010 releases that got a UK release in 2011 (e.g. The King’s Speech, 127 Hours).
Also, the numbers were compiled a week ago, so the Rotten Tomatoes percentages may have slightly altered since then, plus a few films (Anuvahood, Chalet Girl, The Heart Specialist and The 5th Quarter) were left out because they didn’t have full scores on all three sites.
Barney’s Version and The Way Back presented a problem because although they are technically 2010 films, they only had very limited runs to qualify for the awards season so in the end we treated them as 2011 releases.
* Spoiler alert: If you haven’t seen Taxi Driver then there are spoilers in this post *
The new 4K restoration of Martin Scorsese’s Taxi Driver (1976) is another reminder of why it remains an enduring American classic.
A drama about an isolated New York cab driver named Travis Bickle (Robert De Niro), it charts his relationships with a fellow driver (Peter Boyle), a political campaign volunteer (Cybil Shepherd), a young prostitute (Jodie Foster) and her pimp (Harvey Keitel) as he starts to see violence as a solution to his problems.
I first saw the film on video in 1992 and then caught it several times on television and DVD since but had never seen it on the big screen until last night at the BFI in central London.
This new version has been given an extensive 4K digital restoration under the supervision of Grover Crisp of Sony Pictures, which means that the basic resolution of the 35mm negative has been preserved, and it was done with the co-operation of Scorsese and cinematographer Michael Chapman.
First time viewers should be aware that the film captures mid-70s New York in all of its grimy glory, so don’t expect some crisp, shimmering artefact that you might get from a more modern production.
However, this version is faithful to the look of the original and is complemented by a restored soundtrack which does real justice to the sound design and Bernard Hermann’s classic score.
Many things have been written about the film since it opened in 1976, so what follows are some thoughts that struck me after watching the restored version last night.
The Hitchcock style fonts on the opening titles: Just before Hermann’s classic score kicks in you might notice that the font of the opening titles are vaguely reminiscent of those Saul Bass designed for Alfred Hitchcock and others.
Was Scorsese preparing us for the music from Hitch’s longtime composer? (Also look out for the vintage Columbia Pictures logo which Scorsese insisted be put on this restored version).
Bernard Hermann’s Score: The classic drums and brass that open the film as De Niro’s cab comes out of the smoke are broken beautifully by the contrasting saxophone, which serves as a motif throughout.
It was Hermann’s final score before he died and is a fitting swan song for one of the all-time great film composers.
General Image and Sound: The new 4K restoration is deeply impressive, although it should be noted that the slightly grainy film look has been preserved. There are numerous scenes which look cleaner and crisper but there are also sequences – especially the climax – in which the rougher, desaturated look has been preserved. It should be noted that the film was shot entirely on location in New York, which makes the sound work all the more impressive.
De Niro’s Legendary Performance: Given the dramatic artistic collapse of De Niro’s acting career over the past fifteen years, his golden years of the 1970s and 80s are almost painful to watch. In The Godfather Part II (1974), Taxi Driver (1976), The Deer Hunter (1978) and Raging Bull (1980) he gave iconic performances, which were some of the finest in film history. Much has been made of his exhaustive research for the role, but look out for the layers he gives Travis.
There is the charming innocent who tries to politely communicate with women, the amiable cab driver and ultimately, the disturbing vigilante who sees guns as a solution to his urban hell. De Niro brilliantly juggles all of these elements and really sells his gradual descent into violence. The now legendary ‘You talkin to me’ monologue is not only bravura acting, but mesmerising because it mixes his psychotic impulses with a human desire to communicate (tellingly he is talking to himself).
The Supporting Cast: Because De Niro is so outstanding, it is easy to forget how good the supporting cast is. Boyle is a classic ‘leader of the pack’ in the cab office; Shepherd is charming as the object of Travis’ affections; Brooks is deliciously smarmy as her political campaign colleague; Leonard Harris is pitch-perfect as the political candidate; Foster is precocious in what must have been a hard role to play; and Keitel is brilliantly sleazy as her pimp.
Portrait of Urban Decay: The production design and use of locations is masterful and comes across strongly on this restored version. The dirt and grime of New York feels incredibly real and is important in establishing the urban squalor that helps drive Travis to desperate acts. There are careful shots of pimps, street criminals and crowds that subtly set the mood. But overall, you come out thinking there was something deeply rotten about the Big Apple in the 1970s and Travis Bickle – in an iconic yellow cab – is a perfect metaphor for the city in this period.
Scorsese’s Cameo(s): The director has a famous cameo in the back of a cab, as rather irate husband in a suit. But he can also be seen very briefly earlier on with a t-shirt and jeans sitting down as Betsy walks in the street.
Are they meant to be two different characters? Or was Scorsese just short of extras that day? But whenever I see a Scorsese cameo I can’t help but think of Hitchcock – a director deeply important to him – who also made several on-screen cameos.
The Clint Eastwood Connection: Before the screening began I was comparing De Niro’s career to Eastwood to someone sitting next to me as they make for an interesting case study. In the 1970s De Niro was the respected leading man every serious actor aspired to be, whilst Eastwood was the commercial star of the Dirty Harry series and mainstream fodder like The Gauntlet (1977) and Every Which Way But Loose (1978). But today Eastwood is the hugely respected director of films like Mystic River (2003) and Letters From Iwo Jima (2006), whilst De Niro is the comedy dad-for-hire in commercial gunk like Little Fockers (2010) or horror crap such as Godsend (2004).
Coincidentally, as Taxi Driver progressed I noticed the presence of Eastwood in more ways than one. For a start his 1975 film The Eiger Sanction is showing opposite the cinema where Travis takes Betsy to see a Swedish sex film. Then there is Scorsese’s speech about the 44 Magnum and what it can do to the female anatomy. Could this possibly be a riff on Dirty Harry’s famous speech about the handgun? Or is it all just a coincidence? (Just a thought. Can you even imagine a contemporary director like Christopher Nolan or David Fincher doing this kind of cameo?)
The Political Dimension: The political campaign that hovers in the background of the film is shrewdly judged. Palantine’s slogan (‘We are the people’) typifies the calculated insincerity of politics so brilliantly that I’m surprised real campaigns haven’t used it more often.
The scene where the senator gets in the back of the cab is wonderfully played. Leonard Harris, who plays Senator Palantine, was actually better known as a TV cultural commentator but his natural gravitas and diction make him perfectly suited for the role.
His dialogue with Travis is funny but also splendidly awkward, showing the gulf between politicians and the people they represent, even though the illusion is that they have something in common. Isn’t this modern politics in a nutshell? It also foreshadows a key later sequence.
Bickle as Assassin: You could read Bickle as a thinly veiled version of loner assassins like Arthur Bremer or Lee Harvey Oswald in his frustration with life and desire to make a name for himself. But at the same time screenwriter Paul Schrader has admitted that his own personal troubles inspired the character and even Oliver Stone (a pupil of Scorsese’s at NYU film school) has said he could have been an influence on Bickle. Like Travis, Stone was a Vietnam vet who, during the mid-70s, wore a green combat jacket whilst driving a cab in New York. Bickle is thus a complex protagonist: a dangerous outsider who we can sympathise with up to a point. Certainly the original trailer sold the film on the danger of the central character:
But he is more layered than the traditional movie monster. In fact he is a disturbing character precisely because we get to know him. He ironically ends up a ‘hero’ in the press and it could be this quality which gave the film an unfortunate real life legacy when real life loner John Hinckley Jnr became obsessed with it and Jodie Foster, before trying to shoot President Regan in 1981. In his mind, did Hinckley think that he would end up like Travis does? This suggests a creepy relevance to Taxi Driver, which is perhaps a testament to how well it taps in to a certain mindset.
The Easy Andy Scene: The scene where Travis purchases guns from an illegal dealer, “Easy Andy” (Steven Prince)Â is a memorable one. The windows of the apartment room provide a great backdrop with their views of the Hudson, contrasting with the more claustrophobic scenes in the film. Guns here are a form of release for Bickle. Notice how he pointedly refuses any illegal drugs but buys as many weapons as possible. It seems hand guns are his real drug of choice. Incidentally, Scorsese later made a short film about Prince called American Boy. (Note the prescient mention of Crystal Meth at the end of the scene, a drug which spread in the US over the next thirty years).
Compassion Amidst The Murder: It is worth noting that Bickle throughout shows an unusual level of compassion towards others. Betsy is initially attracted to him because his honest compliments and sincerity contrast nicely to her smarmy co-worker, whilst his attempts to help Iris get out of child prostitution are similarly laudable. This prepares us for the end where the press and Iris’ parents see him as a hero, although not the one they think he is. It also shows us that even bad people can do good things – again, this is unusual in a mainstream Hollywood film.
The Racism of the 1970s: Maybe in retrospect, we like to think that racism is a ghost of the past exorcised by the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. But Taxi Driver doesn’t shy away from the racial tensions of a large city. Notice the looks Travis gives to black characters (especially black pimps) and he freely uses racist terms. Scorsese’s cameo as the ‘sick’ passenger in Travis’ taxi features a use of the n-word that younger audiences might find objectionable. When Travis first shoots the robber in the convenience store, the owner carries on beating the man with a savagery that suggests a racial dimension. The pimp played by Harvey Keitel was black in the first draft of the script, but that was later changed as they wanted to avoid the stereotype and accusations that the film itself had racist overtones. So, the film is still a powerful and uncomfortable reminder of how racism lingers just under the surface of ‘regular’ society.
The Colour of the Climax: The violence of the climactic shootout freaked out the MPAA and they threatened to give the film an X rating if changes weren’t made (which would have meant commercial death for the film). As part of the changes Scorsese toned down the colour of the climax in order to get an R-rating, so that the blood looks less red. For this restored version Grover Crisp explained in a lengthy interview with The Digital Bits why they didn’t colour correct this sequence:
Q: Much has been made of the decision to alter the color of the shooting scene at the end of the film to get an R rating in 1976. Why didn’t you restore it to the originally-shot, more colorful scene?
A: There are a couple of answers to this. One, which we discussed, was the goal of presenting the film as it was released, which is the version everyone basically knows. This comes up every now and then, but the director feels it best to leave the film as it is. That decision is fine with me. However, there is an impression from some who think we could easily “pump” the color back into that scene and that is not as easy as it sounds. The film was not just printed darker, or with muted colors, as some think. There are two sections of the original negative that were removed from the cut and assembled camera negative. One is the long shot where the cab pulls up, Bickle walks over to Sport, they argue, he shoots him, then he walks back and sits on a stoop. That is all one shot that was removed. The second section removed begins with the shot of the interior of the apartment building where he shoots the hood in the hand and all the shots following this down to the final one of the overhead crowd shot outside – that entire sequence was removed as assembled. These two sections of original camera negative were then sent to TVC, a small lab in New York, where it went through a Chemtone process, a chemical treatment that somewhat opens shadows allowing for greater density and lower contrast, for the most part. The exact process was a bit clouded by TVC as a proprietary service, but it usually involved original processing and, at this point, the negative was already finished. Whatever the actual processes, what I can say is that they delivered back duplicate negatives of these two sections, with the long sequence, in effect, now an optical dupe and with the desired color and density built into it. So, literally, when printing this film at a lab then (or now), there was no way to grade it and print it the way it was shot. Those muted colors are built into the dupe negative and it doesn’t work to try to print it otherwise. We also searched many times over the years for the original negative that was removed, but to no avail. Likely, it was junked at TVC at the time.
Q: What about for the Blu-ray – couldn’t you just re-do the color with today’s technology?
A: No, the same situation exists in that environment. You can’t really successfully pump a color into a film that isn’t there. There were attempts, to some degree, to put more red into that scene on older transfers of the film (the most recent almost ten years ago, and without talent involvement) and you can see those results in DVDs that were released. There is more red than should be there, but the red is everywhere, in the walls, clothing, skin, hair, etc., and that is what happens when you try to force a color into an image that really isn’t present. This Blu-ray release is actually closer to what it looked like in 1976 than any previous home video release, and not just for the color. The well-know “you talkin’ to me” scene, for example, was seriously cropped on older editions. All those shots are actually from the camera looking at his reflection in the mirror, not straight on of him while he talks, and they cropped out the side of the mirror and zoomed in to the point where he had slightly more headroom, but you could barely see the gun he’s holding. We don’t agree with that kind of framing manipulation, so we framed it properly for 1.85 SMPTE standards for projection and now you will see the image as you would in a theater, which is the way it should be.
The Final Shot: The ambiguous final shot of the film, which involves Travis looking suddenly in his rear view mirror has always been intriguing. It suggests that he has seen something (although it isn’t clear what) and that he is disturbed. Or is it all just a fantasy? On the audio commentary for the Laserdisc Scorsese revealed that the last scene implies that he might slip back into rage in the future, and is like “a ticking time bomb.” Schrader has also said that Travis “is not cured by the movie’s end” and that “he’s not going to be a hero next time.” Again the ambiguity is startling and fascinating and provides a great talking point in any post-screening discussion.
Some classic films can lose something when you revisit them but Taxi Driver stands up remarkably well.
Part of its  power lies in how well it taps in to urban alienation, the haunting power of Schrader’s script, the brilliance of Scorsese’s direction and the unforgettable central performance from De Niro.
Scorsese’s explores the dark heart of America like few other filmmakers.
It is no coincidence that his best films – Taxi Driver, Raging Bull and Goodfellas – have central characters who represent a side of the American psyche that Hollywood wasn’t always comfortable with.
Taxi Driver is re-released at UK cinemas from Friday 13 May in London, Edinburgh, Dublin and other cities
Last week some major questions about the cinema experience were raised at Cinema Con, the annual convention of American theater owners in Las Vegas.
Previously known as ShoWest, the convention has been relaunched and gathers the National Association of Theatre Owners, who represent over 30,000 movie screens in the US and additional cinema chains from around the world.
Studios go there to preview their big summer blockbusters and get exhibitors excited for upcoming titles like Super 8 and Real Steel.
It is an important place to spot industry trends this year two of the big ones were: higher frame rates and a controversial video on demand scheme backed by four of the major studios.
HIGHER FRAME-RATES
One of the fundamentals of cinema is that films are shown at 24 frames per second, as light is projected through a print on to a screen.
Even with the rise of digital projection systems, this has essentially stayed the same as audiences have got used to this particular look.
Cameron was advocating that films in cinemas should be projected at 48 fps or 60fps and that the current generation of digital projectors could easily adopt this with a software upgrade.
But what would films screened at higher frame rates actually look like?
This NBC news clip in 1984 shows Trumbull promoting Showscan:
For various reasons, it never took off even though in 1993, Trumbull, Geoffrey Williamson, Robert Auguste and Edmund DiGiulio were awarded a Scientific and Engineering Academy Award for devloping the system.
Trumbull persisted with a digital version of Showscan, which he thinks has a place in modern cinemas and can improve regular movies as well as those shot on 3D.
In this 2010 video, Trumbull demonstrates Showscan Digital:
Back at CinemaCon, Cameron indicated that he plans to shoot his upcoming Avatar sequels using a technique similar to Showscan.
He unveiled a series of basic scenes shot by Russell Carpenter (his DP on True Lies and Titanic) which involved a medieval set.
They included a lot of camera movements such as pans and sweeps that often cause “strobing” or the appearance of flicker.
The scenes involved included a banquet and a sword fight and part of the presentation was to compare them at different framerates: 24, 48 and 60, as well as 3D.
He spoke earlier this year of his desire for higher frame rates in a talk with former Google CEO Eric Schmidt:
Part of the argument against higher frame rates is that 24fps is the established look of film and to mess with it is unwise and will make films look weird.
It could also be argued that it would tend to benefit the action spectaculars Cameron specialises in.
But given how much money the director has generated for cinema owners with Terminator 2 (1991), Titanic (1997) and Avatar (2009), the audience would have given serious consideration to his idea.
As studios struggle to deal with declining DVD profits and cinema owners struggle to adapt to shifting audience expectations, it is a development worth watching over the next couple of years.
But that wasn’t the biggest news story to come out of Cinema Con as four of the major studios dropped a major bombshell regarding how films are distributed.
VIDEO ON DEMAND or STUDIOS vs EXHIBITORS
One of the hot topics for the film industry that has been smouldering for a number of years is the issue of the release window.
Since the advent of home video in the early 1980s, there was an established pattern of release for a movie which allowed it to be screened first at cinemas, then on video a few months later and eventually on TV platforms.
Each stage made money for the studios and it was important that one didn’t cannibalise the other.
But over the years the window has gradually shortened to the point that films hit DVD and Blu-ray around 3 months after they have opened in cinemas.
There is a now a growing movement of people that feel the release window is outdated and that audiences should be able to legally access films via download or pay-per-view at the same time as they are released in cinemas.
Obviously, the exhibitors are dead against this.
Not only would it potentially cut into their profits but could be the beginning of a slippery slope where the cinema experience would be badly damaged, perhaps fatally.
So when the news broke during CinemaCon that four of the major studios (Warner Bros., Fox, Sony and Universal) had signed up to a premium VOD service with satellite company DirectTV, it was a major slap in the face to exhibitors.
The details are that DirecTV will allow users to stream titles to their home from April, beginning with titles such as Unknown (the Liam Neeson thriller which came out in the US on February 18th) and Just Go With It (the Adam Sandler comedy which had a February 11th release in the US).
Wide theatrical releases will become available on this service just 60 days after they open at cinemas, at a cost of $30.
This means that the window of release has been shortened even further and NATO (National Association of Theater Owners) issued a swift statement, expressing “surprise and strong disappointment” at the move.
Firstly, they were pissed at the basic idea:
On March 30, it was reported that Warner Bros., Fox, Sony and Universal planned to release a certain number of their films to the home 60 days after their theatrical release in âpremiumâ Video on Demand at a price point of $30. On behalf of its members, the National Association of Theater Owners (NATO) expresses our surprise and strong disappointment.
Then there was the timing (although I guess the studios plan was to ruffle feathers and get attention):
Theater operators were not consulted or informed of the substance, details or timing of this announcement. Itâs particularly disappointing to confront this issue today, while we are celebrating our industry partnerships at our annual convention â CinemaCon â in Las Vegas. NATO has repeatedly, publicly and privately, raised concerns and questions about the wisdom of shortening the theatrical release window to address the studiosâ difficulties in the home market.
Then there was the risks of ‘early-to-the-home VoD’:
We have pointed out the strength of theatrical exhibition â revenues have grown in four of the last five years â and that early-to-the-home VoD will import the problems of the home entertainment market into the theatrical market without fixing those problems. The studios have not managed to maintain a price point in the home market and we expect that they will be unable to do so with early VoD. They risk accelerating the already intense need to maximize revenues on every screen opening weekend and driving out films that need time to developâlike many of the recent Academy Award-nominated pictures.
Piracy also got a mention:
They risk exacerbating the scourge of movie theft by delivering a pristine, high definition, digital copy to pirates months earlier than they had previously been available.
Interestingly, Paramount is mentioned as being a hold out. (Could this be because Viacom boss Sumner Redstone has a background in movie exhibition?):
Paramount has explicitly cited piracy as a reason they will not pursue early VoD. Further, they risk damaging theatrical revenues without actually delivering what the home consumer seems to want, which is flexibility, portability and a low price.
Then the big guns really came out:
These plans fundamentally alter the economic relationship between exhibitors, filmmakers and producers, and the studios taking part in this misguided venture. We would expect cinema owners to respond to such a fundamental change and to reevaluate all aspects of their relationships with these four studios. As NATOâs Executive Board noted in their open letter of June 16, 2010, the length of a movieâs release window is an important economic consideration for theater owners in whether, how widely and under what terms they book a film.
Additionally, cinema owners devote countless hours of screen time each year to trailers promoting the movies that will play on their screens. With those trailers now arguably promoting movies that will appear shortly in the home market to the detriment of theater admissions, we can expect theater owners to calculate just how much that valuable screen time is worth to their bottom lines and to the studios that have collapsed the release window. The same consideration will no doubt be given to the acres of wall and floor space devoted to posters and standees.
And to finish there was what appeared to be a thinly veiled threat:
In the end, the entire motion picture community will have a say in how the industry moves forward. These studios have made their decision in what they no doubt perceive to be their best interests. Theater owners will do the same.
The above words could be read as: “You want to put Liam Neeson thrillers and Adam Sandler comedies on to VOD? Fine, we just won’t show them”.
Exhibitors still have this powerful weapon.
If they choose not to promote or even screen films, then that would almost certainly turn an expensively assembled theatrical release into a straight-to-DVD leper.
Earlier this year, the UK’s three big cinema chains â Odeon, Vue and Cineworld â threatened to boycott Alice in Wonderland in protest against Disney’s plan to shorten the theatrical run by bringing forward the DVD release date.
Eventually, agreements were reached but it highlighted the fact that big studios also have a powerful bargaining chip: they have the hit films cinemas need in order to survive.
But is it conceivable that in the future they could make a major film available on home platforms and bypass cinemas?
It would appear that established filmmakers are on the side of the cinemas.
During a Warner Bros presentation for The Hangover Part II, director Todd Phillips got wild applause for pledging his support for exhibitors.
Even futurists like Cameron and Lucas are still big believers in the theatrical experience.
But if you are on the studio side advocating the VOD argument, you might think that this is a bridge that should be crossed sooner rather than later.
The costs of digital distribution are lower and VOD potentially reaches the audiences who can’t make it to a cinema.
With lower-budget films dependent of word of mouth such as 127 Hours or Win Win, a studio like Fox Searchlight might argue that a mixed model of theatrical and VOD might benefit those films, as they would get more people watching and paying for them than is currently the case.
Strangely, it could be the more specialised films with lower marketing budgets that benefit more from the current plans.
But there are also those arguing that folding the release window is a suicidal move that would kill profits.
Every time [a film] plays the studios are earning back more money. If you eliminate all that to one window, it is completely destructive to the overall film business. This is myopic …very short-sighted and a very bad idea.
Film studios seem determined to kill the movie business completely. After putting video stores out of business by authorizing Redbox to rent videos for $1 per day from what amounts to a Coke machine, now they want to put movie theaters in a coma by authorizing a new at-home video-on-demand release during what has until now been the exclusive first-run theater window. As for the impact on theatrical attendance, I believe it will be devastating. However, among studio execs the best case quoted to me was a 10 percent drop in attendance with the executives insisting that, “Some theaters will close, others will raise prices … it’s all good.” The reality is that a 10 percent drop in total attendance, across the board and permanent, will cause 2/3 of all the theaters in the U.S. to close their doors and never open again.
Perhaps the uncomfortable truth is that there is a larger cultural change going on.
Although large numbers of the general public enjoy going to the cinema, the pace of technological change in devices (TVs, computers) and the distribution of films has made a key section of the audience impatient as to what, when and where the see something.
Major studios can gauge this and are willing to burn bridges with exhibitors in order to satisfy this demand and reduce their distribution costs.
I don’t think anyone film fan wants to see the theatrical experience go away, as it remains the best way to experience the medium.
But this move by the big studios makes it feel like major changes are just over the horizon.
A gaudy, adolescent fantasy riddled with mindless slow motion set-pieces marks a creative low-point for director Zack Snyder.
Opening with a young girl named Babydoll (Emily Browning) being sent to an asylum, Sucker Punch explores how she tries to escape her grim reality by imagining another world of an underworld bordello where she and her fellow inmates (Abbie Cornish, Jena Malone, Vanessa Hudgens) dance for various men.
This then develops into another imaginary world every time she dances, which features various combat missions against fantastical enemies (which include giant samurais, zombie Nazis and fire-breathing dragons) whilst a wise man (Scott Glenn) offers her guidance.
(Incidentally, there are some striking similarities to John Carpenterâs The Ward, a little seen horror from last year about a young woman sent to an asylum.)
All of this plays like a low-rent version of Inception, as various characters traverse different levels that affect one other, mixed with the camp theatricality of Burlesque, with the female characters dressed in increasingly over the top costumes.
Incorporating a variety of influences, including graphic novels, manga and first-person shooter video games, it appears that Snyder has attempted a major homage to his own passions.
Like his previous film 300 (2007), this is a world heavily reliant on stylised CGI landscapes, and armed with a sizeable budget (reportedly $80m), he has created what is essentially a hyperactive console game for the big screen.
The fundamental flaw is that none of it really matters.
Despite the sword fights, gun battles and attempts to escape the asylum, nothing is ever at truly at stake and there is zero tension as the film plays out like a deranged firework.
Snyderâs trademark use of slow-motion is especially tiresome, especially in addition to the use of songs (including sacrilegious covers of tracks by The Beatles, The Smiths and The Pixies) which make long stretches feel like a Britney Spears video.
It is hard to talk about the effectiveness of the performances, as Snyderâs script (co-written by Steve Shibuya) only allows his leading actresses to be the most puerile of fantasy figures.
Their names – Babydoll, Sweet Pea and Blondie – and increasingly icky attire reduce them to ciphers and the unreal set-pieces play out like a Charlieâs Angels episode on acid.
Actors in supporting roles donât fair much better: Carla Gugino is memorable only for a bad Russian accent; Jon Hamm barely has any screen time at all; and Scott Glenn is on auto-pilot as a fatherly figure spouting words of advice.
In order to get commercial-friendly ratings (PG-13 in the US and 12A in the UK), Snyder has removed a sex scene and cleverly cut around the violence, so we donât actually see anything too graphic.
Despite this, an uneasy air of sleaze still hangs over the production, especially given the fetish gear costume designer Michael Wilkinson has designed for the female leads.
The persistent threat of rape and violence towards young women – usually from sleazy, overweight men – also pervades the film like a bad smell and feels vaguely creepy in a film aimed squarely at younger-leaning audiences.
It isn’t often that you get a brothel, lobotomies, shootings to the head and attempted sexual assault in a 12A film, but I guess its all fantasy, so who cares anyway?
Sucker Punch is an original story in the sense that it wasnât adapted from an existing property, but it is pretty unoriginal in processing existing films and games in this genre.
But to what end?
There’s no heart, emotion or tension here and all the sequences seem to have been designed solely to make a certain kind of fantasy nerd go âawesome!â. It also tries to capture a younger female audience who might like the idea of girls in kick-ass action roles.
But this film shows the danger inherent in giving an audience âwhat they wantâ (or what the studios think they want) as it has already largely failed to appeal to either crowd.
The tidal wave of negative reviews, plus the fact that finished up behind Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules on its opening weekend, suggest it alienated mainstream audiences and the very geeks it was supposed to indulge.
Snyderâs stock as a director is considerably diminished after this, but as he heads off to prepare for his upcoming Superman film one hopes he can put this relentless, vapid exercise behind him and make something worthwhile.
The second film from director Duncan Jones is a satisfying sci-fi thriller which manages to pack invention and emotion into a neat 95 minutes.
Laying out the plot of Source Code is tricky as much of the pleasure of the film lies in how it gradually reveals its hand.
The basic set up is this: US soldier Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) wakes up to find himself on a Chicago bound train, sitting opposite a woman (Michelle Monaghan) who appears to know him.
After a short time, the train explodes and he realises he is part of a futuristic military program which allows him to continually experience the last 8 minutes of a commuter’s life in order to discover who planted the bomb.
Supervised via video link by a military scientist (Jeffrey Wright) and a fellow soldier (Vera Farmiga), Colter finds out more about the suspected bomber on each âpassâ and why he was selected for this mission.
To the filmâs credit, it manages to add a few more layers and twists without ever getting lost in complications, despite the nagging feeling that there are gaping logic holes with regard to the âscienceâ in the film.
What exactly is the source code? How can people communicate in the way they do in the film?
But we are basically in an extended, upscale episode of The Twilight Zone where none of that really matters when you are actually watching the film (although a post-screening discussion might be a different matter).
This is familiar territory for Duncan Jones, as his debut feature Moon (2009) explored similar areas (although in a different context) and he handles the bigger budget and action sequences with an impressive ease.
Generally, the exterior locations of the train are blended well with the interior set of the train, although there are moments when the CGI and green screen aren’t fully convincing (a dramatic jump from a train is jarring).
But DOP Don Burgess and Jones manage to explore the location of the train well, getting across the claustrophobia and drama packed inside the carriages before visually opening out the film as it gets nearer the climax.
The performances suit the material well: Gyllenhaal is a solid lead, playing a more likeable version of his soldier in Jarhead (2005); Monaghan is a charming foil, whilst Farmiga and Wright bring a convincing level of military authority to their roles.
Chris Baconâs score also adds a nice touch of urgency, effectively channelling Bernard Herrmann, and there is more than a dash of Hitchcock to the film as it centres around a MacGuffin (in this case a bomb) and the plot is a lean affair in which one sequence propels into another.
Although a mid-budget movie, reportedly made for around $35m, it could do better than expected as various elements combine in satisfying ways.
The action and suspense gives it across the board appeal; the central character is an honourable soldier who may strike a chord with flyover states; the twisty narrative will be a talking point among movie fans; and the surprising emotional chemistry could snare the date movie crowd.
Even if it doesn’t make a huge impact theatrically there seems an assured shelf life for Source Code as a sci-fi thriller with brains and ideas, even if some of them donât seem to fully add up when the film is over.
A smart and beautifully crafted coming-of-age story marks an auspicious directorial debut for Richard Ayoade.
Set in Swansea and based on Joe Dunthorne’s novel, it explores the growing pains of 15-year old Oliver (Craig Roberts) as he falls in love with classmate Jordana (Yasmin Paige) and also struggles to prevent a new-age neighbour (Paddy Considine) from splitting up his father and (Noah Taylor) and mother (Sally Hawkins).
The time period is elusive as the lack of mobiles and computers hint that it could be the late 1980s (at one point a character mentions going to see Crocodile Dundee) or early 1990s, although presumably it has been left deliberately vague to emphasise the universal nature of the story.
It contains many familiar genre elements (articulate protagonist, voiceover, teen problems) but Ayoade manages to bring a fresh visual approach and combines it with just the right levels of comedy and emotion.
Roberts makes for a highly agreeable lead, with his articulate wit undercut by a natural insecurity about people and the world, whilst Paige manages to be both elusive and down-to-earth.
Together they make a charming pair as they go for walks on the beach, watch small fires outside industrial estates and struggle to deal with the stuff of teenage life.
The supporting roles are perfectly cast: Hawkins is a dowdy but humane presence, Taylor is a quietly withdrawn but affectionate patriarch and Considine is hilarious as spiritual guru (almost like a British version of Tom Cruise’s character in Magnolia).
At one point Oliver says that he imagines his own life as a movie and what really elevates this above most home grown British films is its obvious love for cinema.
Some have already observed Wes Anderson as a stylistic influence (Rushmore being the obvious touchstone) and there are numerous visual hat-tips to French new wave directors such as Truffaut and Godard with the use of jump-cuts and hand-held camera work.
The world of British comprehensive schools is also vividly depicted: the frustrated teachers, playground taunts and unreasonable peer pressure are all evoked with hilarious accuracy.
DOP Erik Alexander Wilson and Ayoade create a world filled with interesting compositions and use of colour, giving the local British settings an unusual richness.
There are also lots of impressive little touches, such as the recreation of Open University TV programs, the way in which characters speak (Considine is especially good in this regard) and even a brief cameo from executive producer Ben Stiller.
Gary Williamson’s impressive production design and Charlotte Walter’s costumes also help shape the world of the film and give it an extra visual lift.
Andrew Hewitt’s atmospheric score and the specially-composed songs by Alex Turner add to the melancholy vibe without ever descending into mawkish sentimentality or overpowering the story.
Mainstream audiences might not initially embrace the quirky style of Submarine but over time it could become a firm cult favourite as its common themes and inventive approach hit home with viewers.
On paper this is a film that contains many familiar elements but the execution is really something special and marks Ayoade as a director to watch.
Submarine opens at selected UK cinemas from Friday 18th March
It didn’t find an audience in the US but this drama is a thoughtful depiction of the American workplace during the current recession.
Exploring the contemporary economic malaise through the lens of a fictional Massachusetts company GTX, the story focuses on various employees as they gradually feel the effects of corporate downsizing.
The principle focus is on a cocksure sales guy (Ben Affleck) in his late 30s; his veteran colleague (Chris Cooper) and the company’s co-founder (Tommy Lee Jones) as they all try to deal with the pressures applied by their cost-cutting CEO (Craig T Nelson).
As they have to deal with the soul destroying effects of losing their white-collar livelihoods, they all struggle to cope with unemployment and its impact on their personal and professional lives.
Director John Wells has had an illustrious career in television with megahits like ER and The West Wing, and like those shows his debut feature deals with white-collar workers and contemporary social issues.
Some will criticise the film for not dealing with those lower down the economic food chain, but it is arguably more daring to examine the soured dreams of the American middle class.
Although by no means perfect, it is a restrained but compelling portrait of people coming to terms with the uncertainty and despair following the financial collapse of 2008.
Wells has assembled an excellent ensemble cast: Affleck convincingly displays the arc of a complacent man gradually humbled by circumstance; Rosemary DeWitt is an effective voice of reason and love as his wife; Jones brings a wise, grizzled anger to his part whilst Cooper paints a haunting portrait of an older worker in despair.
The supporting turns are also of a high standard: Nelson makes for a ruthlessly logical boss; Maria Bello is his conflicted hatchet woman; whilst Kevin Costner has his best role in some time as Affleck’s blue-collar brother-in-law who offers him work.
Set in sterile corporate offices or suburban houses, the hiring Roger Deakins as cinematographer was a master stroke: not only does he light these environments with his customary skill and taste, but he also brings a visual elegance to the film which is so well executed you barely notice it.
This is not a film with especially earth shattering revelations, as anyone with a brain can deduce that unemployment leads to misery and despair.
But the screenplay, based on extensive interviews and research, is filled with painfully accurate touches: the outplacement seminars designed to help laid off workers; the corporate obsession with the stock market; the quiet agony of trying to get re-employed, the effects on loved ones and the struggle to re-establish an identity defined by a job.
Coming at time when America and Europe is only just coming to terms with the scope of the late 2000s recession, the film is powerful reminder of the Capitalism gone horribly wrong.
No doubt that is why audiences have largely stayed away from the film, as this is a raw subject, perhaps too close to home for many individuals and families affected by job losses.
There are times when the screenplay and guitar-inflected score reach for sentimental uplift, but overall the message throughout is fairly subversive for a mainstream American film.
Not only does it point out the callow nature of corporate America but also highlights the emptiness of material possessions and shallow thinking that played a part in inflating the sub-prime mortgage bubble.
An unusually bold film, it deserves credit for confronting an issue that will unfortunately be around for some time to come.
Although it barely made a dent at the US box office, the story of ex-CIA agent Valerie Plame makes for an impressive political drama.
Despite being one of the key world events of the last decade, the Iraq War has proved to be box office poison for films attempting to deal with it.
Films such as In the Valley of Elah (2007), Body of Lies (2008), Stop-Loss (2008) and Green Zone (2010) have all shunned by mainstream US audiences who presumably don’t want to dwell on the painful consequences of a politically divisive conflict.
So it proved with Fair Game, which explores how the Bush White House leaked the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame (Naomi Watts) in retaliation for an article her diplomat husband Joe Wilson (Sean Penn) had criticised the justification for war in 2003.
But despite the lack of interest from US audiences it is an expertly assembled piece of work and easily director Doug Liman’s best film in years.
After an opening which establishes Plame’s background as an undercover operative the drama begins when Wilson is asked to travel to Niger in order to ascertain whether they have sold uranium to Iraq.
After concluding that there’s no substance to the claim, he is enraged when the White House use his report as part of their justification for war, prompting him to write an angry counter-blast in the New York Times.
This then triggers a rebuttal by syndicated columnist Robert Novak which outs Plame and triggers not only the end of her career but a political scandal involving Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, Scooter Libby (David Andrews) and undercover operatives endangered by the leak.
Some will have issues with the details of the script by Jez Butterworth and John Butterworth, which is largely based on the Wilson’s two memoirs.
But whatever the interpretations it weaves reporting, details and anecdotes to powerfully evoke the heady rush to war in 2003 when the Bush White House was keen to steamroller any dissent regarding the invasion.
It is also a powerful depiction of a marriage thrown into turmoil as many in the media establishment initially side with the White House having swallowed the justifications for war.
Watts is convincing as a working CIA agent, conveying her frustrations with agency politics and the consequences for her life and career.
Penn inhabits his role effectively, as one might expect, even if his performance does involve a fair bit of scenery chewing as he seeks to defend his wife and principles.
In small but significant supporting roles, Sam Shepard, Noah Emmerich, Michael Kelly and Bruce McGill are all good value as Washington insiders.
The real star though is Doug Liman and the film represents a new creative lease of life for him after making studio fare such as Mr and Mrs Smith (2005) and Jumper (2008).
Serving as his own cinematographer for the first time since Go (1999), the visuals have a compelling immediacy and the narrative moves at a decent pace despite cramming in a lot of material into the 105 minute running time.
The world of Washington circa 2003 is also effectively evoked by Jess Gonchor’s production design.
It may be some years before mainstream US culture is ready to digest the Iraq War – it took a decade before films like Platoon (1986) revisited the deep scars of Vietnam – but Fair Game is an honourable and well made reminder of the nature of the government who engineered the conflict.
Fair Game opens at UK cinemas on Friday 11th March
An uneven hybrid of drama, romance and sci-fi turns out to be a good deal less than the sum of its parts.
Loosely based on a Philip K. Dick short story called ‘Adjustment Team‘, it involves the chance meeting of a New York politician, David Norris (Matt Damon) and a dancer named Elise (Emily Blunt) as they deal with various mysterious men who have an interest in keeping them apart.
As the film develops we gradually learn more about these shadowy figures, which include Anthony Mackie, John Slattery and Terence Stamp, why they wear Trilby hats and how they mysteriously appear at random.
Written and directed by George Nolfi (better known until now as the screenwriter of Ocean’s Twelve) it has an intriguing setup that quickly morphs into a bizarre science-fiction romance.
Despite its problems, there are certain elements which resonate:Â Damon is highly convincing as an aspiring politician, with scenes of him on the campaign trail featuring expertly woven in cameos from the likes of Mayor Bloomberg, Jon Stewart and James Carville, whilst Blunt makes for a charming romantic foil.
Contemporary New York is also shot in a distinctive way with several real life locations effectively blended into Kevin Thompson’s production design, even though they opted for a drab, wintry feel.
It also deals with some intriguing themes such as fate and the role of chance in our lives and Thomas Newman has a typically polished score with his trademark hanging strings and tasteful electronic flourishes.
Unfortunately the overall film is undermined by a shaky approach to the subject matter as it seems Nolfi was unsure as to what kind of story he was trying to tell.
By playing around with so many different genres, it ends up with an unsatisfactory mix of them: the thrills aren’t exciting enough, the romance is underdeveloped and ultimately the story just doesn’t engage as it should.
The men in suits seem to personify the film’s problems. Crucial to the narrative, they are never satisfactorily explained and their funny hats and flashing notebooks come across as unintentionally funny.
Furthermore, actors who play these mysterious agents, such as John Slattery, Anthony Mackie and Terence Stamp are wasted in one-note roles with lame, expository dialogue. Slattery in particular is a mere clone of his character in Mad Men.
The central concept is also never fully realised on screen. Mostly Nolfi and DP John Toll have gone for a naturalistic look but – apart from some slick use of green screen near the end – there aren’t enough compelling visual ideas, compared to films exploring similar territory like Inception (2010) or The Matrix (1999).
Much of the action is explained away as soon as it happens and the climax to which it builds is underwhelming, to say the least. You know there is a major problem when a key scene feels like a cheap copy from Monster’s Inc (2001).
To be fair, the film deserves credit for trying something different from the usual Hollywood formula (it was funded independently by Media Rights Capital and only distributed by Universal) but Dick’s provocative ideas have been lost in this underwhelming adaptation.
The Adjustment Bureau opens in the UK and the US on Friday 4th March
As the awards season comes to a close, let’s forget about the campaigning and debate about what would or should win and reserve a special mention for some of tonight’s nominees.
In what has been a strong year these are various people I think deserve special mention, regardless of whether they win tonight.
SPECIAL MENTIONS
Javier Bardem in Biutiful: The most powerful performance of the year was Bardem’s searing portrait of a decent man on the edges of modern Barcelona.
Although the film’s relentless focus on death turned off dweeby critics, Bardem’s acting will be remembered for years to come.
Christopher Nolanfor Writing and DirectingInception: The enormous commercial success of Nolan’s career has strangely obscured his very real creative accomplishments. Fashionable contrarians and elederly members of the Academy were turned off by the gorgeous labyrinth that was Inception, mainly because it was ‘too loud’ or ‘too clever for its own good’.
The fact that Nolan (as director) and his veteran editor Lee Smith were snubbed still hints that some Academy members don’t get his films. But for a generation of filmmakers it will be discussed, analysed and appreciated for years to come.
Angus Wall and Kirk Baxterfor editingThe Social Network: One of the crucial aspects of Fincher’s drama that makes it work is the phenomenal edit job by Angus Wall and Kirk Baxter.
It might take a couple of viewings to fully appreciate, but the criss-crossing timelines and overall construction of sequences is masterful. Some Academy voters might not have got the film on first viewing but repeated viewings highlight the dazzling, but often understated, work that went into it.
Roger Deakins’cinematography forTrue Grit: Although already something of a legend for his amazing body of work, Deakins managed capture the haunting beauty of the west in True Grit whilst providing some indelible images.
Many people think it is his time to be awarded an Oscar and who would begrudge him a statuette this year?
The Visual Effects in Inception: The team at British SFX house Double Negative who worked on Nolan’s film (Paul Franklin, Chris Corbould, Andrew Lockley, and Peter Bebb) deserve a lot of credit for helping build convincing dreamscapes through live action and CGI.
The inventive blend of real locations, stuntwork and CGI were stunning and in the hotel fight sequence, limbo city and the overturning of Paris have set a new standard for effects work at this level.
The score for The Social Network by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross: One of the most startling and arresting scores in recent memory was this wonderfully discordant electronic score. The way in which the dialogue driven opening scene gives way to the unsettling title sequence is one of the most memorable film transitions of the year.
Just a few minutes later the urgency of the Face Smash sequence is powered by an unforgettable frenzy of beats and noise. In some ways the score to the film is what gives the film it’s unique flavour, with no cliched strings or cliched tracks from the time, it gives the story a distinct and original feel.
The Sounds of Inception: People always get confused between sound mixing and sound editing. To simplify, editing involves how the parts are assembled, whilst mixing is about the whole soundscape is put together.
It is a crucial and often undervalued aspect of movies and in the case of Inception, Richard King did an incredible job of recreating the sounds of all the different dream levels, which involve trains, guns, explosions, punches, car chases. The construction of the audio landscape in Inception was one of the great unsung reasons as to why it worked so well.
Charles Ferguson’s Inside Job: The documentary category this year is incredibly strong but Charles Ferguson’s documentary about the financial crisis deserves special mention.
Brilliantly dissecting the way Wall Street has essentially captured a generation of politicians and held society hostage for their own ends, it is a chilling reminder of how the political orthordoxies of the last 30 years have wreaked havoc but largely gone unpunished.
A superbly crafted Australian crime drama filled with excellent performances marks a stunning debut feature for director David MichĂŽd.
Set in Melbourne, and loosely based on real events, it tells the story of Joshua Cody (James Frecheville), a teenager who joins a crime family headed by his grandmother, Janine ‘Smurf’ Cody (Jacki Weaver).
We gradually realise that his new suburban home is a snake pit of illegality featuring a sinister eldest son Pope (Ben Mendelsohn), his business partner Baz (Joel Edgerton), the livewire drug dealer Craig (Sullivan Stapleton) and the quiet Darren (Luke Ford).
When a local police officer (Guy Pearce) engaged in a lengthy battle with the family tries to tempt Joshua to help him bring down the Cody family, things start to escalate.
This is a claustrophobic and unpredictable world in which hardly anyone can be trusted and where slow burning tensions instantly explode.
Interestingly, the focus is kept mostly on the Cody clan and the police form a shadowy background presence, popping up like eagles snatching eggs from the family nest.
It works more as a riveting character study than a conventional crime film and features some brilliant ensemble acting: Frecheville is quietly brilliant as the protagonist; Weaver is wonderfully charismatic as the Lady Macbeth matriarch and Mendelsohn is hypnotic as one of the creepiest villains in recent film history.
MichĂŽd must be given huge credit for the fact that this is a crime movie with no obvious influences. At times it appears to be channelling Michael Mann and Michael Haneke, but it has its own unique flavour.
Part of what makes the film so effective is that terror can lurk in the most everyday places, so the audience â like the protagonist – is always kept on edge and doesnât quite know who to trust.
One scene in which a car reverses out of a suburban garage is masterfully wrought with dread and tension.
The confident, widescreen visuals by DP Adam Arkapaw are highly effective, contrasting the shadowy, interior worlds of bungalows and offices with the harsh exterior light of Southern Australia.
A distinctive score by Antony Partos adds to the atmosphere of dread and overall MichĂŽd has crafted one of the most accomplished films to come out of Australia in recent years.
How did hotly anticipated Oscar contender Never Let Me Go fall out of the race and die a box office death?
This week sees the UK release of the highly accomplished adaptation of Kazuo Ishiguro’s acclaimed novel, which is about three children who grow up together and slowly realise their lives are not what they expected.
A prestige project financed by Film4, DNA Films and Fox Searchlight, it was only last summer that it seemed like a solid awards season candidate.
All the right ingredients were there: a talented director in Mark Romanek, a script by Alex Garland and a promising young cast featuring Carey Mulligan, Andrew Garfield, Keira Knightley and Sally Hawkins.
When the first one sheet poster and trailer appeared around June, it looked like Fox Searchlightâs formidable marketing machine was clicking into gear.
The buzz established there can be the fuel that sustains an awards campaign, as was the case in 2008 when Slumdog Millionaire began its all-conquering Oscar run at Telluride.
This year the big audience favourite was The Kingâs Speech, which got people buzzing and pundits immediately declaring it as an Oscar front runner.
There seemed to be an aversion to the actions of the main characters, especially in the final stages of the film, although to say anymore would be venturing into spoiler territory.
In one interview Garland said that some people âhatedâ the film and Romanek even pointed people (via Twitter) to Ishiguroâs defence of why the characters act the way they do.
This mixed buzz would have been alarming for the team at Fox Searchlight who had hoped this would be one of their major Oscar contenders. But worse was to come.
Most films like Never Let Me Go are given a platform release, which means that they open gradually in major cities, hoping to build on good reviews and positive word of mouth.
On its opening weekend in mid-September, it played at 4 cinemas in New York and Los Angeles, scoring an impressive $120,830, and Sheila DeLoach of Fox Searchlight seemed upbeat, saying to IndieWire:
âItâs one of the top opening per screen averages of a limited film this year, and we feel weâll have good word of mouth.â
But as the studio expanded the number of screens, audiences stayed away and it gradually died a box office death over the next few weeks, ultimately grossing just $2.4m in the US against a reported production budget of $15m.
In late October the LA Times published a post-mortem piece speculating as to why it didnât catch fire citing:
the melancholy tone
mixed reviews
lack of appeal to male viewers
the high expectations set by the novel
issues with the release date.
It was around this time that I saw the film at the London Film Festival and remember being deeply impressed with the world created by Romanek and the performances (especially Mulligan) whilst also feeling that it was emotionally distant.
But something about it stayed with me and on a recent second viewing in anticipation for the UK release, it struck me that the film might be too effective for its own good.
The powerful, unnerving sadness baked into the story hit a profound chord as deeper themes slowly emerged.
On the surface the it deals with how precious time is, but you could also see it as a story about the way a society rationalises cruelty for the greater good.
The characters in the film could represent anyone in the unfortunate position of being deemed expendable in the eyes of the wider public, be they the homeless, the dispossessed or simple transgressors.
What really hit home on second viewing was a social resonance which Ishiguro probably didnât intend when he wrote the novel but which the film eerily catches in the current era.
That is how the three central characters, as children and young adults, all seem represent the younger generation of today, one which will potentially pay a heavy price for the prolificacy and greed of the one that spawned them.
Two scenes drive this home: one where a teacher (Sally Hawkins) cryptically explains to her pupils what their life will be and another late on in the film where a key character quietly explains something truly devastating.
In short, you could read Never Let Me Go as a parable of the expendable or how one generation suffers for the sins of its parents.
The focus on the innocence and emotions of the central characters, gently suffocated by wider social forces, is what makes the film really affecting.
But perhaps the sci-fi framework, revealed at the beginning, along with the muted colour palette put some people off from engaging with the film.
It is largely a moot point whether or not the characters ‘accept’ their lives, because the film is – in part- about that very notion of acceptance and how people are conditioned for various reasons to accept their lot.
This is the melancholy truth at the heart of story, which makes it work artistically but not financially in the current era of austerity and gloom when audiences aren’t really up for sadness at the multiplex.
In addition the performances help keep us interested in the strange lives of Kathy, Tommy and Ruth: whilst Knightley and Garfield are good, it is Carey Mulliganâs performance as Kathy which is the emotional lynchpin of the film.
She deserved all the plaudits for her breakout role in An Education, but here she surpasses it with a performance of great emotional range.
Whilst enduring the slow-burning torment of having her one true love stolen by her best friend, she reacts to this (and worse!) by becoming a thoroughly decent and compassionate person.
This is heartbreaking to watch and Mulligan doesnât hit a false note, especially in the key final act.
Mark Romanek also brings his considerable technical skills to the table and with the help of his DP Adam Kimmell captures the English locations with a piercing eye for detail and the haunting beauty of the landscape.
Although he has only directed two features before this â the little seen Static (1985) and One Hour Photo (2002) â he puts things together with the assurance of an accomplished veteran director.
In the build up to awards like the BAFTAs and Oscars it is easy to forget films that have fallen out of the media spotlight, as but fallen contenders like Never Let Me Go are still worth a look, even if its beautifully designed one-sheet poster has been replaced with a dumbed down UK quad.
It wonât win any major awards and will leave some audiences cold, but I have a feeling that it will find a more appreciative audience over time, as its sad insights are reflected in the wider world.
Never Let Me Go opens in the UK on Friday 11th February
The tradition has its roots in Christian and Roman times when early February became associated with weather prediction, possibly due to it being close to the pagan festival of Imbolc just a day earlier.
For some reason it was believed that hedgehogs were accurate forecasters of weather and when German immigrants to the United States settled in Pennsylvania, the lack of hedgehogs meant that they substituted them with the native groundhog.
‘Groundhog Day’ was born.
The largest celebration is held in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania, which became the setting for the 1993 comedy starring Bill Murray as Phil Connors, a TV reporter who covers the event, only to find he is living the same day, over and over again.
Directed by Harold Ramis, part of what makes the film special is that it remains unusually inventive for a mainstream studio comedy.
I uses a clever and accessible premise to make shrewd points about human nature, without resorting to cheap sentimentality.
The protagonist is self-centred and takes his colleagues for granted which means there is a satisfying sense of comedic justice when he finds himself trapped inside the endlessly repeating day of February 2nd, 1992.
It is when this cycle begins that the script, co-written by Ramis and Danny Rubin, really shows its stripes, finding ever more inventive ways to explore the deja vu nightmare of its central character.
The increasing torture for Phil, is hilarity for the audience, as the little details repeat and build on one another: the Sonny and Cher song, the annoying man in the street, the waitress and crucially his encounters with his producer Rita (Andie MacDowell).
There is also the central dramatic irony as only we and Phil know that he is experiencing the same day over and over again and literally living life like there is no tomorrow.
Most comedies have some kind of cheesy self-improvement theme built into them, but the reason Groundhog Day is different lies in the power of the central idea: the more we experience the same routine, the greater our insight into others and ultimately ourselves.
There is also something film-like in the way Murray’s character is essentially doing endless ‘re-takes’ of the same day.
It was well received by audiences and critics when it was initially released in February 1993, going on to become the 13th highest grossing film of that year.
But it gradually became a firm favourite on home video: an appropriate fate for a film about repetition, which gets better through repeated viewings.
Perhaps the most lasting legacy of the film is that the title has itself become a phrase in the English language to denote a bad situation that repeats itself.
The parable-like qualities of the film have seen it embraced by religious viewers including Buddhists, who see the themes of selflessness and rebirth, and Catholics, who see February 2nd as representing Purgatory.
“Groundhog Day” is a film that finds its note and purpose so precisely that its genius may not be immediately noticeable. It unfolds so inevitably, is so entertaining, so apparently effortless, that you have to stand back and slap yourself before you see how good it really is.
Certainly I underrated it in my original review; I enjoyed it so easily that I was seduced into cheerful moderation. But there are a few films, and this is one of them, that burrow into our memories and become reference points. When you find yourself needing the phrase ‘This is like Groundhog Day’ to explain how you feel, a movie has accomplished something”
Although it didn’t receive any serious awards recognition at the time, it has since appeared on many retrospective polls of great comedy films and the Writers Guild of America even ranked the screenplay as 27th on their list of the 101 Greatest Screenplays ever written.
This year the movie channel Encore even showed the film on a loop for 24 hours, a fitting tribute for a film that gets better the more you see it.
Three parallel stories connected by life after death make for an ambitious but disappointing drama.
Clint Eastwoodâs directing career over the last few years has encompassed diverse subject matter, including female boxing (Million Dollar Baby), World War II (Falgs of Our Fathers, Letters From Iwo Jima), retired car workers (Gran Torino), missing children (Changeling) and the 1995 Rugby World Cup (Invictus).
But even by his eclectic standards Hereafter is something of a curveball, exploring how three characters across the globe are affected by the afterlife in different ways.
Scripted by Peter Morgan, best known for political dramas The Queen (2006) and Frost/Nixon (2008), the material boldly dives in to big themes but as it progresses feels curiously disjointed and more like an early draft of something more profound.
The intercutting of the three stories at first feels like a bold move but soon becomes wearying and as the film enters into the final act, the curious lack of tension or revelation for a subject as big as death feels oddly underwhelming.
All this is exacerbated by Eastwoodâs signature pared down directing style which (with the exception of the opening) keeps things low key and distant.
This gave his better films of recent years (Mystic River, Letters From Iwo Jima) a slow burning power and richness, but here it works against the material, muting the themes and emotions of the lead characters.
There are parts of the film that show promise: the San Francisco section handles the potentially laughable subject of psychics with an elegant restraint and Damon conveys the loneliness of a decent man haunted by a strange gift.
This is compounded by the London section, which not only bungles key details of the 2005 London bombings (getting the tube stations wrong) but suffers from a dramatic inertia, compounded by a bizarre final section in the city which is lacking in tension.
Morganâs initial script may have stood out in Hollywood because he wrote it on spec – rather than be commissioned by a studio – and the unusual elements might have piqued Eastwoodâs interest because they werenât chasing an industry trend.
(Strangely, films dealing with death and loss suddenly now appear to be more common, with Never Let Me Go, Biutiful, Enter the Void and Inception all exploring these themes in different ways.)
To be fair to the veteran director, his handling of the locations and interior scenes is impressive, with Tom Sternâs lean and clean cinematography featuring a little more movement than their previous collaborations.
Eastwoodâs score is also a plus, with the guitar and piano providing a nice counterpoint to the struggle of the different characters struggling to comprehend their situations.
Some scenes hint at what might have been: such as a quietly disturbing psychic reading on a first date; the startling opening sequence and a brief discussion about the commonality of near-death experiences.
The film deals with the subject of death without the loud bombast favoured by mainstream cinema and moves at a reasonable, if fractured, pace but the story never really digs deep or rises to be anything special.
A set of underdeveloped ideas and a patchwork, dislocated narrative provide a weak foundation, which means that by the curiously uninvolving climax you might have forgotten it is about arguably the biggest subject of all.
Ultimately Hereafter is a film which chooses not to stare death in the face, but give it a distracted, passing glance.
It begins in Arkansas during the 1870s with a young girl named Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld) hiring grizzled US Marshal Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) to track down her fatherâs killer (Josh Brolin).
A Texas Ranger named Le Beouf (Matt Damon), who is also after Chaney, joins them as they head out into Indian Territory (present day Oklahoma) and, despite their differences in age and temperament, gradually form a close bond.
Although regarded by some as a remake of the film that finally won John Wayne his first Oscar, this is actually more faithful to the original novel, preserving the point of view of Mattie and its distinctive depiction of the Wild West.
Both the town of Fort Smith and the rugged surrounding landscape are recreated with consummate skill: regular cinematographer Roger Deakins shoots the terrain with a harsh beauty and Jess Gonchorâs production design helps create a detailed, but never romanticised, world.
The wintry setting makes for palette which emphasizes blacks, browns and greys, which is in stark contrast to the garish Technicolor of the Henry Hathaway film.
Aspects of the setting such as the rough way of life and the violence also mark this out from the previous version.
Not only does this help make the current film distinctive but also provides a convincing backdrop for the actors to shine, although it might surprise some audiences how much of a presence Steinfeld has in the film.
In what is effectively the lead role, she anchors the narrative and acts as a surrogate for the audience, as we see much of the action through her perspective.
A precocious performance, it is amongst the best any child actor has given in recent years and bodes well for her future career.
As Cogburn, Bridges banishes any lingering memories of Wayne in the role, mixing the grizzled, boozy charm of his country singer in Crazy Heart with the believable tough streak of a hardened lawman.
Damon has the slightly lighter role of Le Beouf (pronounced âLe Beefâ), but his comic timing is impeccable and provides an excellent foil for Bridges and Steinfeld.
All three main actors cope well with the affected dialogue, which the Coens have gleefully taken straight from the novel, and this is mirrored by quirky ‘Coenesque’ behaviour, which involves characters shooting at cornbread and arguing about Confederate guerrillas.
With less screen time, actors such as Brolin and Barry Pepper (as âLuckyâ Ned Pepper) make a strong impression and there are the usual array of distinctive, odd-looking minor characters that often crop up in the work of the Coens.
Carter Burwellâs plaintive score is moving without ever being sentimental and provides a highly satisfying mix of hymns, strings and piano to augment the action.
Despite featuring the ironic tone so beloved of the Coen Brothers, there is a pleasing sincerity to Mattieâs quest, as her scripture-fuelled journey captures her determination and spirit, which rubs off on the men around her.
This is something that is movingly depicted as the film reaches its latter stages.
Certain memorable sequences, such as a group hanging or the climax, skilfully weave humour in with genuine tension, showing the light and shade of the West as originally imagined by Charles Portis.
Since the book and previous film came out in the cultural tumult of the late 1960s, the image of John Wayne cast a long shadow over the source material, obscuring the way in which Portis slyly undercut the very traditions of the Western that âDukeâ embodied.
The Coens have translated this humour and pathos for a time of similar cultural transition, making a Western that both celebrates and wryly debunks the genre.
A reminder of their prodigious filmmaking talent, it is also an evocation of a distant time and place that feels strangely radical in the current era of Hollywood.
True Grit is out in the US and opens in the UK on Friday 11th February
As I saw my first film of the year last night (Season of the Witch – don’t ask) it felt the time to do a preview of what lies ahead this year.
This isn’t some breathless rundown of blockbusters to look out for (in fact this year already feels like a dire crop is on its way) but rather some general observations on films, awards season and trends to look out for in 2011.
SUNDANCE 2011
In recent years the festival seems to have retreated from the high-profile auction madness of the last decade to its indie roots.
Last year, the big breakout films included Winterâs Bone, Catfish and Restrepo, all of which seemed to reflect the original ethos of the festival.
This year, films to keep an eye on include:
Win Win (Dir. Tom McCarthy): Drama about an attorney (Paul Giamatti) moonlighting as a high school wrestling coach, who comes across a star athlete.
The Green Wave (Dir. Ali Samadi Ahadi): Animated blogs and tweets tell the story of Iranâs tumultuous elections of June 2009.
Project Nim (Dir. James Marsh): Documentary about Nim, the chimpanzee who was taught to communicate with language after being raised like a human child.
The Flaw (Dir. David Sington): Documentary exploring the delusions that led to the financial crisis of 2008 using archive, animation and personal stories.
Life in a Day (Dir. Kevin McDonald and others): The much publicised YouTube project involving Ridley Scott’s Scott Free production will be an interesting test case for collaborative films made over the web.
THE KING’S SPEECH WILL DOMINATE THE BAFTAs
Since becoming an audience favourite at Telluride and Toronto, the British drama about the relationship between King George VI (Colin Firth) and his speech therapist (Geoffrey Rush) quickly became an Oscar frontrunner.
Given the British bias at the BAFTAs (remember when Atonement beat No Country For Old Men?), it is a shoo-in to win on home turf, although a Best Actor Oscar will probably go Firthâs way too.
Oscars for Best Picture and Best Director now look very likely, although the major acting categories feel like they are going to Colin Firth (The Kingâs Speech) and Natalie Portman (Black Swan).
Other winners in the supporting categories might include Christian Bale (The Fighter), Geoffrey Rush (The King’s Speech), Melissa Leo (The Fighter) and Hailee Steinfeld (True Grit).
THE TREE OF LIFE WILL BE A MAJOR EVENT FOR CINEPHILES
The latest film from Terence Malick in May will be greeted with relief in a summer dominated by sequels and comic book adaptations.
With a major star (Brad Pitt), Fox Searchlight releasing it and a captivating trailer already out there, this could be an early contender for next yearâs awards season.
If you are depressed at the current state of mainstream cinema with its sequels, remakes and brightly lit comedies starring Katherine Heigl, then this could be the antidote for discerning audiences who don’t give a toss about Thor.
THIS WILL BE A CRUCIAL YEAR FOR 3D
After the box office bonanza of Avatar convinced many studios to shoot big releases in 3D, 2011 will see the results of that production pipeline.
There is an absolute slew of 3D movies out this year, with most of the major tent poles coming out in the format including: The Green Hornet, Sucker Punch, Thor, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, Kung Fu Panda 2, Green Lantern, Cars 2, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2, Captain America: The First Avenger, The Smurfs and The Adventures of Tintin: Secret of the Unicorn.
These films will all make money but, aside from the mark-up on ticket prices, will they be much more profitable than if done in 2D? This could be the year when studios crunch the numbers and really decide if 3D is the long term future.
James Cameron accused Piranha 3D of devaluing the format (or âpeeing in the poolâ) and this year we will see the sequel Piranha 3DD (yes, it is really called that) and 5nal Destination (see what they did there?), although more interesting films may include Martin Scorseseâs first film in the format, Hugo Cabret, and the Werner Herzog documentary Cave of Forgotten Dreams.
THE FINAL HARRY POTTER FILM WILL RULE THE SUMMER BOX OFFICE
This isnât exactly news given that the Harry Potter franchise is now the biggest in history, but the final film is probably going to be on a different level to its predecessors.
For kids who grew up in the last decade, the Potter series is what the original Star Wars trilogy was to a previous generation, appealing to most age groups.
The fact that this is the climax to the series and will be the final time youâll be able to see one in a cinema means a box office bonanza on a huge scale.
When it opens in July, opening records will tumble and it will probably be the first film to have a serious crack at getting near Avatarâs all-time record.
SUPERHEROES WILL LOSE SOME OF THEIR BOX OFFICE POWER
We are now in the second decade of The Comic Book Movie after a decade which saw several blockbusters based on famous Marvel or DC characters.
Comic-Con has become a mecca for Hollywood executives looking to pander to the nerd hordes and launch a new franchise (and ignore all the disasters that previewed there).
Take a look at whatâs coming out this year and youâll see reboots (X-Men: First Class), lower-tier characters (Green Hornet, Thor) and a character so dated (Captain America) you wonder how it will play around the world (Iâm betting it wonât break records in the Middle East).
The big comic-book franchises that dominated the last decade (Spider-Man, Batman) came after a long period when (with the exception of the Caped Crusader) they were out of favour with Hollywood, but will audiences tire of the same characters being endlessly recycled?
With the collapse of dependants like Paramount Vantage, Warner Independent and Picturehouse in the last couple of years, it has been a bleak time for films with a more independent edge and flavour.
But although studio resources are geared towards tent-pole releases that keep them profitable, maybe the critical and commercial success of The Social Network (funded and released by Sony) and True Grit (released by Paramount) points towards a future where smart and serious films can be made at the major studios.
There are only so many films that can be based on comic books or board games and talent will always be attracted to material that will get critical and awards attention.
Perhaps itâs blind optimism, but there seems to be a vacuum for smart movies if studios can take calculated risks on the right talent and material and make it for a reasonable price.
APPLE SHOULD BUY NETFLIX
Given that they have a huge amount of surplus cash, Steve Jobs should take film delivery to the next level and purchase Netflix.
Both companies have been at the forefront of delivering music and movies to consumers, so why not join forces and create a home entertainment behemoth?
It would allow Apple to venture into the streaming market that Netflix have pioneered and could mark the moment that legal internet downloads capture the consumers who still want to buy DVD or Blu-ray discs.
A lot of the movie industry (and the media that cover it) is obsessed with the current pipeline of movies, but the average viewer doesnât get to see that many in a year, so is this the year they realise the potential of on-demand viewing?
There are some who see the breaking of release windows as a dangerous heresy, but could an Apple-Netflix combo do to Hollywood what iTunes did to the music industry in the last decade?
An epic escape from a Russian gulag during World War II forms the backdrop for Peter Weirâs first film in seven years.
Loosely based on Slavomir Rawicz’s book “The Long Walk: The True Story of a Trek to Freedom” (more of which later), The Way Back begins with an soldier named Janusz (Jim Sturgess) being sent to a remote Siberian prison camp on trumped up charges of spying.
After enlisting the help of inmates to escape, including an ex-pat American (Ed Harris) and a tough gang member (Colin Farrell), the group venture on a massive trek across Asia where they meet an orphan (Saoirse Ronan), struggle to survive and attempt to reach the safety of India.
Weir shoots everything with convincing detail: the prison camp is believably hellish and the landscapes form a frequently stunning backdrop as the prisoners venture across sub-zero Russia, the Gobi Desert and the Himalayas on their way to India.
Visually, the film feels grittier than one might expect, with D.P. Russell Boyd appearing to use a lot of natural light and the splendour of the landscapes are frequently intercut with shots of blisters and the physical cost of the journey.
The performances all round are solid: Sturgess and Harris stand out as the two lynchpins of the group; Farrell is charmingly gruff; Ronan has presence and depth and Mark Strong is believably seductive as a prison camp veteran with his own agenda.
As a narrative experience, the initial tension of the prison break quickly becomes a fight for survival as the group struggle to eat, stay warm and avoid all manner of hardships involving the harsh landscape.
This means that it lacks conventional tension, but there is a certain pleasure in the gruelling sprawl of the story as they keep moving across a bewildering variety of landscapes and adverse weather conditions on their 4,000-mile trek.
Sequences that particularly stand out are the initial prison break in a blizzard, a lake infested with mosquitoes, a harsh desert which drives them to the brink and the latter stages which involve some famous Asian landmarks.
For the most part it is absorbing and features well drawn characters, even though it occasionally suffers from the problem of mixing English and native dialogue, which in the modern era diminishes the overall authenticity of the film.
The film hinges on the central characterâs desire to get back home (hence the title) to see his wife, which we see in a recurring vision, and it is hard not to be moved by the climactic depiction of the personal set against the historical.
But although The Way Back is an undeniably powerful experience, there is a problem at the very heart of the adaptation which directly relates to the original book that inspired it.
Although Rawicz’s account was acclaimed for a number of years, in 2006 the BBC discovered records that essentially debunked his version of events, even though there is evidence to suggest that the journey may have been undertaken by other people.
Peter Weir was fully aware of the controversy surrounding the book when he made the film, hence certain key changes, and overall it demonstrates the taste, tact and intelligence that has informed his career.
But given the extraordinary nature of the journey there is something dispiriting about finding out the truth about Rawicz, even if the actual trek may have been done by someone else.
It remains a powerful and handsomely constructed piece of cinema but also suffers from the shady origins of its source material.
An increasingly mysterious online relationship forms the backdrop for a compelling documentary.
The first thing to say about Catfish is that you should know as little as possible before seeing it.
This was a common refrain when it premiÚred to buzz and acclaim at Sundance back in January, but it really is true.
So, even though this review wonât reveal full spoilers, if you havenât seen the film Iâd highly recommend you stop reading this right now and come back after watching it.
It begins when Nev, a 24-year-old photographer based in New York, is contacted online by Abby, an 8-year-old girl from Michigan, who wants permission to paint one of his photos.
An online correspondence develops with Abbyâs family and things get stranger when Nev also virtually befriends Abbyâs older sister, Megan, who appears to be a musician and model.
Up to this point everything we see has been filmed by Nevâs brother Ariel Schulman along with their friend Henry Joost, and in a pivotal scene Ariel persuades his sibling to actually meet Abby and Megan in the real world.
This is when things get really interesting, with the gradually unfolding mystery playing like a suspense thriller.
Except this is arguably more exciting, as fictional films can often be predictable and this is anything but that, as we share the curiosity and excitement of the three young men on screen.
It also explores the impact of modern technology and how the web has gradually embedded itself into the rituals of everyday life, through mobile devices, email, social networking sites and video.
These issues are reflected in the form of the film, which was co-directed by Ariel Schulman and Henry Joost. The raw footage was shot handheld on consumer digital cameras and the online elements are cleverly integrated into the overall look.
When they set off on a journey we see it through a Google Maps graphic; we see close-ups of the central characters using Facebook and the visual look of the film reflects a generation who donât think twice about filming their everyday lives.
The titles and graphics are tastefully rendered and the editing is especially noteworthy, managing to build and maintain the raw suspense whilst never letting the basic story drag.
Watching it with an audience at the London Film Festival was fascinating: they audibly gasped at certain moments and it seemed to tap right in to contemporary questions and fears about how people connect online.
Unsurprisingly, it made a big impact at Sundance and was the subject of a bidding war before being acquired by Rogue Pictures and Universal, who gave it a limited US release last October.
This is where the story gets even more interesting: does the film have a âtruth problemâ? Was it manipulated for effect? Is it even a documentary?
In a year that has seen âfakeâ documentaries like Exit Through The Gift Shop and Iâm Still Here, such questions seem to reflect a wider ambiguity about the genre itself.
As for Catfish, there are nagging doubts that creep in retrospectively.
Was it always their intention to make a film? Would a group of savvy New Yorkers really be this naĂŻve about strangers online? Are the events that unfold too structurally perfect?
There is also one scene where they look at videos on YouTube which seems like the audio has been altered in post-production, although this may not be the case.
Unless there is compelling evidence to suggest otherwise, proving whether the film was real or not is possibly a rabbit hole from which no definitive conclusion can be drawn.
As for my own take, it seems that the film is basically real but polished in post-production to the point where people began to have nagging doubts about its presentation of events.
Whatever the truth, it seems fitting that a film which depicts the uncertainty of online identities should have its own personality crisis.
Despite, or possibly because of this, Catfish is still a notable achievement.
It captures a cultural mood, inspires instant debate and stretches the documentary form in new and imaginative ways.
Catfish opens at selected UK cinemas on Friday 17th December and is also available to watch on various VOD platforms including iTunes, Lovefilm and Sky Box Office
After 28 years, the Tron franchise is resurrected with a visually stunning but emotionally hollow update to the original film.
The first film was about a brilliant software engineer, Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges), who enters into a virtual world whilst this sequel picks up many years later as his son Sam (Garrett Hedlund) tries to solve the disappearance of his father.
Responding to a mysterious message he finds himself pulled into the world where Kevin has been trapped.
Aided by a female warrior Quorra (Olivia Wilde), father and son have to escape the new digital universe and the clutches of those who now rule it.
The original film was by no means a huge hit, but it was a pioneering film that used computer graphics and live action in a way that foreshadowed the revolution in CGI over the last 30 years.
Disneyâs decision to reboot Tron for a new generation, seems to be an attempt to engage audiences who remember it and to adapt the technology driven story for the current digital age, utilising cutting edge 3D and digital effects.
On a purely technical level, the film largely succeeds.
Director Joseph Kosinski has a background in architecture and commercials and the look of the film is remarkable.
Not only are the individual visual effects impressive, but the alternate digital world of âThe Gridâ is brilliantly realised by the effects team from Digital Domain.
The dark, neon lit landscape is a dazzling upgrade from the first film and the stylised costumes, light cycles, discs and various vehicles all provide a feast for the eyes in both the action sequences and calmer moments.
Utilising a similar 3D camera system on which Avatar was shot has paid off, using the frame in an immersive, considered way which contrasts with recent productions which unwisely opted for retrofitted 3D in post-production.
The one visual misstep involves a digital version of Bridges, which only serves to highlight the difficulty in crossing the ‘uncanny valley‘ when using motion capture characters on screen.
But there is a deeper problem at the heart of Tron: Legacy, which is the chasm between the pioneering visuals and the writing.
The script by Adam Horowitz and Edward Kitsis feels clunky and episodic, like episodes of TV show cobbled together in a rush or levels on a computer game that are just there to be completed.
This leads to an inherent lack of drama and consequence to the material, despite the visual pyrotechnics that make it so captivating to look at. It also means the performances suffer, as the characters are often just cogs in a wheel.
Hedlund is a generic young lead who lacks charisma; in contrast, Bridges has presence and gravitas as the elder Flynn, whilst these qualities are absent in his younger alter-ego C.L.U.; Wilde looks and feels right for her part, but has little to do except kick some obligatory butt.
In supporting roles Michael Sheen seems to be doing a camper version of David Frost as a mysterious club owner and actors such as James Frain and Beau Garrett also feel like elaborate props rather than actual characters.
Despite these fundamental drawbacks, the score by Daft Punk is absolutely epic: a wonderful mixture of their trademark electronica with a full orchestra that gives the whole film an extra kick.
It is curious to predict how audiences will react to Tron: Legacy as it references a lot of the original film and yet at the same time feels quite different.
Disney have opted not to re-release the original, so its presence lingers over this sequel in a strange way: are they worried about it looking dated in comparison or just planning for releasing both films on Blu-ray and DVD at a later date?
Certainly the original, whilst groundbreaking, wasnât a huge hit and there has to be a concern that a new generation might be a little confused as to why this new film exists and why it took nearly thirty years to warrant a sequel.
If you look closely at the end credits youâll see the filmmakers thank the fans of Hall H at Comic-Con, the annual convention which has held such a sway over Hollywood in recent years.
This film has been a fixture there since 2008 when Joseph Kosinski and producer Sean Bailey gauged interest for the project with test footage and even earlier this year where they recorded audio from the crowd, presumably for the arena sequence.
But is there a danger of Hollywood pandering to the geek-fuelled fantasies of Comic-Con?
Given that Disney has spent a rumoured $200 million on this film, they will be anxiously hoping that mainstream audiences are as passionate as fans in Hall H.
The finished film reflects the strange journey it has had to the screen, as it is both technically dazzling and structurally disjointed.
Although Disney can expect a big opening, the filmâs shortcomings as a drama and possible confusion as to what it actually is (a sequel to a semi-cult 1982 film) could mean it struggles to have an impact on the wider culture.
A low budget monster movie fused with a mumblecore romance is a refreshing change for the genre even if excitement is lost at the expense of mood.
Set a few years after mysterious alien creatures have landed in Mexico, a photojournalist (Scoot McNairy) is ordered to escort his publisherâs daughter (Whitney Able) to the safety of the US.
However, due to various circumstances it becomes a difficult task as they venture through the âinfected zoneâ, which contains various giant monsters which can harm humans and property.
Although it begins with a dramatic opening sequence, director Gareth Edwards has opted to invert the traditional monster action movie with a greater focus on personal relationships, as creatures for part of the background atmosphere.
Shot on a low budget and relying heavily on improvisation, the film paints a convincing picture of life during a social crisis, as the characters are forced to improvise and travel with a constant threat lurking in the background.
Technically the film duplicates the look of much bigger budget rivals with clever use of digital cameras and also uses the landscapes of Guatemala, Mexico and Texas to full effect.
A special effects professional, Edwards utilises his skills to augment the natural landscapes with digitally created objects including helicopters, enormous barriers and various fantastical creatures.
For the most part this creates a highly believable setting, further heightened by the naturalistic performances from his two leads and the non-actors who populate the supporting cast.
McNairy and Able have a chemistry and a believable awkwardness which provides a solid foundation for what is essentially a road movie as they journey with bodyguards and mercenaries to the US border.
Shot guerrilla-style, the film has an impressively convincing feel which stands out because it eschews many of the conventions of the monster movie, even though the setup has many similarities to Cloverfield (2008) and District 9 (2009).
It could be argued that it is too successful in sacrificing adrenaline for realism. Apart from a couple of sequences, especially the climax, audiences might be surprised at the lack of excitement on screen.
More of a relationship movie than one might, for a film called Monsters there isnât actually a lot of monster action in it.
This paradox means it lacks the traditional excitement of the genre, but it still has a unique flavour as a kind of mumblecore sci-fi drama and a clever, narrative twist should provide audiences with a talking point as they leave the cinema.
Technically it punches well above its weight, with Edwards combining several roles with impressive aplomb: in addition to directing he also served as D.O.P and visual effects artist.
But this is an accomplished film across the board: the effective use of sound, Colin Goudieâs editing and an ambient electronic score by Jon Hopkins are also crucial in giving the film a convincing feel and atmosphere.
Monsters is a striking debut and, although probably costlier more than some reports have suggested, bodes well for Edwards’ future efforts as a director.
Although it follows the well worn traditions of a boxing drama, this tale of fighter âIrishâ Micky Ward is elevated by some fine acting and energetic direction.
Based on real events, it is the story of two very different fighters from Lowell, Massachusetts: Micky (Mark Wahlberg), a welterweight hoping to establish himself as a prize fighter; and Dickie Eklund (Christian Bale), his half-brother and trainer, whose own boxing career fizzled out into crack addiction.
It is also explores the wider tensions within their large Irish family, which include his tough mother-manager (Melissa Leo), father (Jack McGee) and several sisters.
The central drama is powered by Mickyâs inner conflicts as he is forced to choose between his increasingly unstable family setup or opt for a new trainer and management on the advice of others, including his bartender girlfriend (Amy Adams).
Viewers will find little new in the general framework of this film: a fighter has to overcome obstacles, juggle professional needs and personal relationships and suffer setbacks before getting a chance at redemption through a climactic fight.
So far, so familiar, but what elevates The Fighter above the sub-genre are some brilliant performances and canny direction: the cast is uniformly excellent and OâRussell digs deep into these characters rather than just coasting on genre tropes.
Wahlberg is restrained but sympathetic in the title role (reminiscent of his breakout role in Boogie Nights) and he physically convinces as a professional boxer.
Bale is sensational as his brilliant but flawed mentor.
He admittedly has the showier part but, like his turns in American Psycho (2000) and The Machinist (2004), his physical transformation is remarkable and he injects Dicky with an intoxicating charm.
Working from a screenplay by Scott Silver, Paul Tamasy and Eric Johnson, director David OâRussell uses his considerable skills to transcend the limitations of the conventional boxing movie.
Part of this involves some brilliant camerawork from Hoyte Van Hoytema, which makes great use of handheld and Steadicam, drawing us in to the world of the characters and infusing the film a restless, raw energy.
Another clever element is the visual look of the boxing sequences, shot on video to duplicate the TV look of HBO pay-per-view fights in the 1990s, with ringside reactions, instant-replays and image pixilation.
This has a parallel in the HBO crew that follow Dicky around for a documentary about his struggles and it could be argued that the title may refer to both brothers.
Like his best films, OâRussell seems to inspire technical excellence across the board: the acting, cinematography, Pamela Martinâs editing, and the convincing period detail are all stellar and they combine to create a convincing portrait of the boxing world.
His most recent film Nailed was shut down after financial problems, and may not even be released, but like Dicky he is a brilliant talent with a loyal champion in Mark Wahlberg, who was instrumental in getting this film made.
It is a shame that since Three Kings, one of the best and most subversive films released by a major studio, that he has struggled to make more inside the Hollywood system.
The Fighter is a compelling comeback story, not just of a boxer and his trainer, but also of its director.
The Fighter is released in the US on December 18th and in the UK on February 4th 2011
Anton Corbijnâs second film as a director is a stylish, existential drama about an enigmatic American hiding out in a remote Italian town.
Beginning with a prologue in wintry Sweden, we first see the titular character, Jack (George Clooney), as circumstances force him to relocate to the Abruzzo region in Italy.
There we slowly learn more about him: he makes a rifle for an assassin (Thekla Reuten) under the orders of his handler (Johan Leysen), befriends a priest (Paolo Bonacelli) and falls for a local prostitute (Violante Placido), as he begins to think about changing his life.
Although The American appears to be channelling the minimalist crime dramas of Jean-Pierre Melville (especially Le SamouraĂŻ), the form and structure resemble a Sergio Leone western, with its story of a stranger arriving in a new town, extended silences and widescreen visuals.
Careful viewers may note that Leoneâs Once Upon A Time in The West can be seen on a television in one sequence and that some of his westerns were shot in the same region back in the 1960s.
Despite the crime elements, this is not an action movie and is essentially a suspense drama revolving around Jackâs gradual construction of a gun and his relationships with various characters, who may or may not be trusted.
It is also deliberately ambiguous about various elements: Jack is a gunsmith but could also be a hit man; a group of characters are simply referred to as âthe Swedesâ; and there is the mystery of why the gun is being constructed.
As a vehicle for Clooney, this is an unusually European film – despite being a US/UK production – and the slow burn pacing and gradual revelations will probably limit its appeal to a mass audience.
The trailer and TV spots have misleadingly sold it as an action thriller (Corbijn recently said that he directed the film âbut not the trailerâ) but its respectable opening in the US probably meant the box office ends were justified by the marketing means.
But there is much to appreciate and right from the opening sequence Corbijn and his cinematographer Martin Ruhe, working together again after Control, demonstrate their considerable visual abilities.
The snowy landscapes of Sweden and the misty, old world charms of rural Italy are captured with exquisite clarity and the artful compositions are often stunning.
Rowan Joffe’s screenplay appears to have some key differences with the novel it’s based on (A Very Private Gentleman by Martin Booth), but the sparse dialogue provides a neat fit for Corbijn’s visual approach.
Clooney is in downbeat mode, but like his performances in Michael Clayton and Syriana it plays against his usual charming screen persona and he convincingly conveys the weary solitude of the central character.
The supporting characters tend to fit in to types: the impossibly soulful and glamorous prostitute, the wise old priest and the impatient boss, but the actors who play them are convincing.
Their chemistry with Clooney also works well, be it in the unusually frank sex scenes, chats in the graveyard, gun tests in the forest or sinister conversations in a restaurant.
Another captivating aspect is how the rifle is actually constructed. Corbijn depicts Jackâs handiwork in detail as each part is assembled with a loving care that contrasts with its ultimate use as an instrument of death.
There is also an effective sense of unease that is gradually teased throughout the film, as everyday events gain a sinister edge due to the danger and mistrust involved in the business of killing people.
This atmosphere is enhanced by Herbert Gronemeyer‘s minimal, atmospheric piano-and-percussion score which, like the poster, evokes the tone of similar films from the 1970s.
As with his debut feature, Corbijn has crafted another considered and tasteful film.
Although the cool, European flavour wonât be for everyone, it bodes very well for his future career as a director.
The American opens in the UK on Friday 26th November
One of the paradoxes of how we record and watch films in the modern era is the stack of unwatched material that gradually builds up over time.
Over the last decade, as home audiences replaced their videos with DVDs, a revolution gradually happened as the rise in online rental services (Netflix in the US and LoveFilm in the UK) and PVRs meant that audiences could timeshift their viewing.
Online DVD rentals are paid for by a monthly subscription fee, so there are no deadlines to return the discs, and with a PVR you can record plenty of films for later viewing.
But what happens when it comes to actually watching these films you have rented or stored?
Back in 2006, an article in Newsweek by Brad Stone titled Netflix Guilt articulated this modern dilemma.
Stone used an unwatched copy of City of God to make his basic point:
I had “City of God” in my possession for 11 months, during which I paid $18 a month for a three-DVD-at-a-time Netflix subscription.
Finally, I returned the movie in defeat while delusionally re-adding it to the end of my queue. By that time, my wife and I were talking about a dangerous new force in our lives: Netflix guilt.
Since 2006, the problem has accelerated with movies on iTunes, larger PVRs and faster connection speeds to deliver them to homes.
The basic issue seems to lie in the enormous choice of films and how it is much easier to select what you want.
Or, to be more accurate, what you think you want.
It is still hard for an individual to actually select something that hits their particular tastes.
In other words, what we think we want to see, isn’t actually what we want to see, as this cartoon points out:
But it isn’t merely a case of mainstream versus art house: often mainstream films that look promising turn out to be awful and more independent fare is gripping.
Leaving aside old favourites, this means that the central problem still remains: how can we accurately select films we want to watch?
The penultimate Harry Potter film is a darker affair as the teenage wizard and his friends go on the run from the forces of Lord Voldemort.
Given that this is the last stretch of the series, it is worth a brief recap of the film series so far, just in case you arenât a devoted fan of the books.
Chamber of Secrets (2002): Returning to Hogwarts, Harry learns about a series of attacks on students and a secret chamber where he has to kill a large serpent and defeat Lord Voldemort’s âmemoryâ, which is in an enchanted diary.
Prisoner of Azkaban (2003): Harry hears an escaped murderer named Sirius Black is after him but realises Black was framed and is actually his godfather.
Order of the Phoenix (2007): Harry forms a secret student group after Hogwarts comes under the influence of a new teacher and ends up having to fight Voldemort’s followers (Death Eaters) at the Ministry of Magic.
Half-Blood Prince (2009): Harry learns how Voldemort has been using special artefacts (âHorcruxesâ) to become immortal and sees his mentor Dumbledore killed by Severus Snape, a teacher at Hogwarts who Harry has had suspicions about.
With The Deathly Hallows, Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) leave Hogwarts and – following clues left by the late Dumbledore – go in search of Horcruxes which will help them kill Voldemort, whilst avoiding the clutches of his followers.
Although there were financial benefits gained by splitting the final book into two films, given its length and sprawling nature, it also allows the filmmakers to do it justice.
But if you are planning on catching the latest film without having seen all the others, donât even bother: director David Yates and screenwriter Steve Kloves have constructed this so that knowledge of the series (either book or film) is a pre-requisite.
This is also considerably darker in tone as the threat of Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) lurks around every corner, forcing Harry and his friends to go on the run as they search for the elusive Horcuxes across the land.
Danger and threat are a constant and the impressively staged set-pieces include an opening mission to escort Harry to safety; a wedding that gets horribly interrupted; an audacious raid on the Ministry of Magic and lengthy stretches in the countryside, where the characters grapple with their various frustrations.
The huge fanbase and family audiences around the world are going to lap this up and there is no doubt that another Potter-fuelled box office bonanza is on the cards, even though the climactic Part 2 next summer will probably be the bigger hit.
Like the more recent films it is proficiently made, with handsome production values and another addition to what is now the most profitable franchise in film history.
But at this point, the series represents an intriguing paradox.
Their colossal success has meant they have become longer and potentially more of a slog for those who arenât committed Potter fans.
At the same time they have become technically more interesting as the production resources have grown and allowed the directors greater creative scope.
It was a trend that kicked in on the third film (which was visually a step up from the first two) and the last two directed by David Yates, which have employed more adventurous visuals and production values.
Yates has demonstrated his ease with the material and it will be interesting to see where he goes post-Potter: these films with their mix of character and spectacle suggest he could make CGI-driven blockbusters or smart, upscale dramas.
For this kind of film, audiences automatically expect the special effects, production design and costumes to be of a high standard and this doesnât disappoint, blending them seamlessly in with the drama.
Despite this, the most memorable sequences involve some old fashioned trickery: a Mission Impossible-style break-in to the Ministry of Magic provides laughs and tension through clever use of actors and sound, whilst old-school animation powers a striking episode explaining the Deathly Hallows of the title.
Eduardo Serraâs cinematography is especially impressive in the outdoor sequences, which includes an exciting chase in the woods and some neat matching of real life environments with CGI backdrops.
Another interesting aspect, which clearly came from the source material, is the allusions to a totalitarian state, racism (the oppression of Muggles), the media (is The Daily Prophet some kind of Daily Mail clone?) and even torture.
Clearly this isnât going to register with large chunks of the audience just there for some wizard action, but it may be something older viewers chew on when they reconsider the series.
But as someone who has never read the books and only experienced the stories at a cinema, coming out of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 raised questions about the longevity of these films.
Will they be as beloved in years to come, or will they be seen as creatures of this decade which just happened to cast a spell on audiences at a particular moment in time?
The intense nature of 127 Hours has led to a slew of reports that audience members have fainted at screenings – but is it just part of a brilliant marketing plan?
During the awards season, a lot of time and money is spent positioning films for contention and Fox Searchlight are past masters at the game.
Since their birth in 1994 they have excelled in securing key wins or multiple nominations for films such as The Full Monty (1997), Boys Don’t Cry (1999), Sideways (2004), Little Miss Sunshine (2006), The Last King of Scotland (2006), Juno (2007), Slumdog Millionaire (2008) and Crazy Heart (2009).
Danny Boyle’s last film was a notable triumph, given that it was in limbo and heading for a straight-to-DVD release before Fox Searchlight picked it up.
The fact that they spotted its potential and managed to turn it into their first Best Picture win made it an especially stunning triumph.
Similarly, they spotted the potential of Crazy Heart last year and mounted a highly effective campaign that propelled Jeff Bridges to his first Best Actor Oscar.
With 127 Hours, they have Danny Boyle’s follow up to Slumdog Millionaire and a tricky proposition: this is a film that centres around a single character stuck in a remote canyon in Utah, before he conducts some unconventional surgery with a penknife.
Given that the story of Aron Ralston (played by James Franco) is fairly widely known, the studio also face the challenge that many audience members will know the resolution of the film involves a fairly gruesome act.
At the LFF press screening I could feel some of the audience tense up during the climactic sequence – a few near me looked away – so I donât dispute that it is a tough sequence to sit through (although curiously transcendent in the context of the film).
After hearing the initial reports of faintings at Telluride, it seemed that the marketing folk at Fox Searchlight would have a job on their hands trying to convince people that 127 Hours wasnât a new horror franchise from Lionsgate.
But now, with the film in platform release and selected audience members dropping like flies, it seems like a brilliant marketing plan.
Danny Boyleâs latest is not the traditional comfort food for the elders members of the academy but a much more contemporary tale of survival.
Is it being positioned for the younger and members of the academy?
Over the last 25 years the Best Picture winners were nearly always period films (the exceptions being Rain Man, The Silence of the Lambs and American Beauty), but the trend over the last few years has been towards darker and more contemporary material.
Think about the winners since 2004:
Million Dollar Baby (2004): Contemporary drama involving euthanasia.
Crash (2005): Contemporary drama about racism in LA.
The Departed (2006): Contemporary crime drama filled with violence.
No Country For Old Men (2007): Not exactly contemporary (it is set in 1980) but is surely one of the darkest films ever to win Best Picture.
Slumdog Millionaire (2008): Mostly set in the present, it includes scenes of poverty, child torture and the central character enduring all manner of physical and mental hardships.
The Hurt Locker (2010): Released before the Iraq War had ended, this featured U.S troops dying in combat and getting hooked on the drug of war.
Whilst some of the above films certainly have their uplifting moments, none of them are exactly Driving Miss Daisy.
What does this say about the Academy voters?
Could there have been a gradual generational shift towards darker films that reflect contemporary anxieties, like there was in the late 60s and early 70s when Midnight Cowboy, The French Connection and The Godfather triumphed?
Which brings us back to 127 Hours.
Are Fox Searchlight positioning this film for a younger generation of voters who embraced the darker leaning films of the last few years?
It is almost as if they are converting their initial fear about the film and turned it into a key selling point.
Want a costume drama about a posh guy stuttering? Vote for The Kingâs Speech.
Want a drama about geeks feuding over a website? Vote for The Social Network.
Want a confusing action film about dreaming? Vote for Inception. (I should interject that Iâm a big fan of all of the above films)
But a story about the basic struggle to stay alive against impossible odds?
Well, there is this film about a guy stuck in a canyon that is so extreme, people are fainting at screenings!
After an ambulance was spotted outside a cinema showing the film in Georgia, noted Oscar watcher Scott Feinberg posted the theory that Fox Searchlight may have embraced the ‘fainting narrative’.
If it is indeed the case, this marketing strategy is almost daring the audiences to experience the film and feel better about themselves for having endured it.
It also builds up a must-see factor, which increases the buzz at a time when 127 Hours increasingly seems like Fox Searchlightâs best shot at the Oscars.
Two of their potential contenders coming in to the awards season – Never Let Me Go and Conviction – have effectively fallen out of the race, whilst Black Swan is something of a dazzling wildcard who’s dark tone and wild sensibility are likely to divide Oscar voters.
Not only does the fainting meme spread the word about Danny Boyle’s film, but it actually nudges people into wanting to see it and to prove themselves as modern, hardened cinema goers.
But will it work with Academy voters? Weâll have to wait and see.
Tony Scottâs latest film is stimulating mainstream fare that may strike an unexpected chord with American audiences.
After last yearâs remake of The Taking of Pelham 123, Scott has returned with another film involving a train starring Denzel Washington.
The setting this time is rural Pennsylvania and, inspired by true events, it deals with two railway engineers (Denzel Washington and Chris Pine) who must stop a runaway train which is loaded with toxic chemicals.
The supporting characters include a plucky yardmaster co-ordinating the rescue (Rosario Dawson); a weasly corporate boss (Kevin Dunn); a visiting safety inspector (Kevin Corrigan); and a persistent railroad welder (Lew Temple).
Like much of Scottâs work, this is a nakedly commercial project executed with considerable technical skill, utilising his stylistic palette: multiple cameras, desaturated images, whip-pans, crash zooms and frenzied editing.
Perhaps the most welcome aspect is how quickly we are plunged into the drama, as the train is let loose before the opening credits have even finished.
What follows is essentially an extended chase, filled with the hallmarks of a traditional action film: set pieces, explanatory dialogue, characters gradually learning to respect one another and a grand finale which involves frequent cutaways to crowd cheering crowd in a bar.
The likeable lead and supporting performances help, whilst the script does a taut and efficient job of making them seem believable people coping with extraordinary events.
But it’s in the action sequences that the film really earns its money, as Ben Seresinâs camerawork and some dramatic sound design all expertly crank up the tension.
One thing Hollywood often gets wrong is the depiction of news TV coverage, but here the graphics and presentation are highly believable and form another perspective to the action as relatives and viewers tune in via television.
The setting of the film might well have been influenced by the tax incentives afforded by shooting in Pennsylvania, but it captures the wintry vibe of rural, working class America very well for what is ostensibly an action drama.
Given the current state of the U.S. economy and the devastation wrought on rust-belt states like Pennsylvania and Ohio, the film might have an unexpected resonance with mainstream audiences affected by the recession.
Throughout the film, the heroics and stoicism of Washington and Pine are contrasted with corporate types that care more about their companyâs profits than their employees.
Clocking in at an agreeably lean 98 minutes, Fox might have a bigger hit on their hands than they initially thought.
The central concept easily sells itself and in an age of CGI fantasies and films pandering to nerds, Unstoppable might hit a nerve amongst audiences looking for traditional, expertly crafted drama involving real people.
Unstoppable opens in the US on Friday 12th November and in the UK on Friday 26th November
It was at a few days before the end of the London Film Festival when I had my first strange Catfish experience.
I was sitting in the delegate centre on the South Bank, the place where journalists and filmmakers go to hang out, drink coffee and wonder why the Wi-Fi still isnât working.
After seeing Black Swan that morning I wanted somewhere to write down my initial thoughts on what was one of the most anticipated films of the festival.
After an hour or so I bumped into someone I knew from a UK distributor, who was accompanied by two American filmmakers who were screening a film at the festival called Catfish.
They were Henry Joost, one of the directors, and Yaniv Schulman, the photographer on whose experiences the film is based.
But Iâd also heard several people say that you should know as little as possible before seeing it.
Henry confirmed that this was probably for the best. All I knew about the film was that it was a documentary (or was it?) which involved Facebook at some point.
Unlike other films at the London Film Festival, there hadnât been any official press screenings, so Iâd bought a ticket for a screening the following Monday.
But I was now in the bizarre situation of chatting with the co-director of a film but not wanting to know too much about it.
So, whilst avoiding major plot spoilers, Henry told me how they had shot it on very cheap, consumer digital cameras and even took one out of his pocket to show me. It was indeed the kind of everyday camera you see tourists use in London all the time.
When I asked about how they got the film to Sundance, he explained that someone sent the film on DVD to Andrew Jarecki (the director of Capturing the Friedmans) and that helped things move along.
He spoke of his excitement when it first screened at the festival, after which it immediately became one of the most sought after titles, with the likes of Brett Ratner and J.J. Abrams entering into to a bidding war to acquire the film.
I spoke carefully because I knew there was a lot of chatter back in January about the nature of the film, but I refrained from asking details so as not to spoil my first viewing.
But we chatted about the technical aspects of submitting a film to Sundance, The Social Network (another film involving Facebook) and Black Swan, which apparently used the same post-production facilities as Catfish.
There is another strange connection with Darren Aronofskyâs film, as the guys behind Catfish also made a film about the New York Ballet, albeit a very different one.
After this random 20 minute encounter, I bid them farewell and it was three days later that I finally saw Catfish at a packed 9pm screening at the Vue West End.
The London Film Festival is open to the public, which can sometimes give the screenings a different atmosphere and this one was put on due to extra demand after the first two over the weekend sold out quickly.
Right from the beginning the film sets up an intriguing situation: Yaniv Schulman is a young New York photographer who is sent a painting by a young girl, who says she lives in rural Michigan with her mother and her sister.
To reveal anymore about Catfish would be spoiling things as the film quickly becomes a gripping and fascinating tale.
Not only does it tap into very modern issues about how the web has reshaped human relationships, but it also calls into question the authenticity of what we experience online.
Although Iâd heard about the buzz from Sundance, seeing it with a hooked audience as they gasped at many of the twists, made me realise how effective the film is.
Not only is it an unusual and highly accomplished film â the production values are excellent, given the relatively low budget â but it raises questions about what youâve just seen.
In addition, my own random encounter with one of the directors and the âleadâ just added to the strangeness.
Over the weekend before seeing it I had imagined all kinds of things about the film. How would it involve Facebook? How real was the story? What was it about this film that made audiences sound like Tyler Durden issuing the first rule of Fight Club?
As the film unfolded in front of me I couldn’t help but think about my own random encounter and how it ignited more thoughts and questions about the film.
Nearer to the UK release Iâll write a longer piece with spoilers, but for the moment Catfish gave me one of the most interesting cinema experiences Iâve had this year.
Catfish opens in the UK on Friday 17th December 2010
