Opening with Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas) getting out of jail in 2001, the story quickly moves forward to 2008 where a trader, Jake Moore (Shia LeBeouf), is looking for revenge after his firm is taken over by a ruthless rival, Bretton James (Josh Brolin).
Enter Gekko, the author of a new book warning of the market meltdown. Jake happens to be dating Gekkoâs estranged daughter Winnie (Carey Mulligan) and agrees to help him reconnect with her, in return for information about Jamesâ firm.
Given that 23 years have passed since the original film, it is remembering that its cultural status built over time. Although Douglas won an Oscar, it was not a huge critical or commercial hit and it took time for his phrase âgreed is goodâ to enter the lexicon.
Gekko was loosely based on disgraced figures such Michael Miken and Ivan Boesky, but gradually became a hero over time to a generation of financial workers who helped stoke the boom years under Clinton and Bush Jnr.
LeBeouf noted that for this film, Stone and Douglas were treated like royalty whilst filming on Wall Street because of the impact of the 1987 film – a cautionary parable about greed that ironically inspired a generation keen to emulate the villain.
The new film has a promising concept: what would Gekko himself make of the financial crises of 2008 and the bailout of Wall Street banks by the taxpayer?
On the plus side, the return of Douglas as Gekko is actually the most enjoyable aspect of the film. Not only does he paint a convincing portrait of a disgraced titan looking to get back in the game, but he balances genuine emotion with sly humour.
Where the film is less successful is the way in which it crams in too much domestic drama alongside the Gekko narrative.
The screenplay by Allan Loeb and Stephen Schiff is weaker when it comes the emotional conflicts of Jake and Winnie, which feels stodgy and undercooked, and it never really nails the extraordinary events of the last 2 years.
Although Le Beouf is agreeable in the role, his characterâs passion for green technology seems forced and Mulligan is almost completely wasted in a one-dimensional role.
Brolin is suitably menacing as the natural successor and rival to Gekko, but there is a curious lack of drama to scenes involving his bank and a global financial apocalypse.
The actual news bulletins from 2008 felt more exciting than the dull sequences here where bankers gather round tables and spout dialogue like it is some kind of TV reconstruction.
Roderigo Prietoâs visuals are curiously muted and also feature a bizarre amount of old school split-screen effects (some not seen since the early days of MTV) and an overuse of graphics which donât actually explain that much.
At around 130 minutes, it lacks the spark and fizz of the original and by the end credits audiences may be wondering what Stone was thinking as it flounders towards an unsatisfactory conclusion.
The biggest strike against the film is that it doesn’t place the 2008 crash in proper context. Although a few neat lines are offered as explainers, it should have gone deeper in to why the Clinton and Bush years led to the current disaster.
Strangely for the Oliver Stone, there is little of his energetic anger or style, and he seems more concerned with sentimental family drama than the underlying social issues, which must rank as a massive missed opportunity.
Douglas ultimately provides a reason for watching, but it seems like this film will have a much more muted cultural impact than the first, as it fails to form an effective response to the current financial meltdown.
Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps opens on Wednesday 6th October
The US remake of the Swedish vampire classic manages to confound expectations by actually improving on the excellence of the original.
For those unfamiliar with the story, it involves a lonely young boy (Kodi-Smit McPhee) struggling at home and school, who befriends a mysterious girl (Chloe Grace Moretz) who moves in next door with a older guardian (Richard Jenkins).
Relocating it to Los Alamos, New Mexico in early 1983, it begins with a police officer (Elias Koteas) investigating a mysterious death which we later find out is just one of many plaguing the area.
Shooting mostly on location, Reeves and cinematographer Greig Fraser have crafted their own visual style which keeps things atmospheric and murky, referencing the original but also defining its own visual palette.
It is no coincidence that we see Regan as a background presence on TV denouncing the Soviet Union as an âevil empireâ and generally contributing to the dark mood throughout.
Reeves doesnât shy away from the darker elements of the material: the school bullies are depicted as unremitting monsters (as they can seem to a child) and the violence hasnât been curbed to get a softer rating.
McPhee and Moretz are excellent in the lead roles and have a rare emotional chemistry for actors of their age. Their relationship is all the more moving because of the danger at the heart of it.
As a horror remake this is light years ahead of the horror junk that has been seeping out of Hollywood recently.
For those unfamiliar with the original, it will be a rare chance to appreciate a well crafted and emotionally effecting horror film.
But how will this play to audiences who have already seen the original Swedish film?
It is a difficult question to answer. Some will see it as redundant, others might even refuse to see it at all.
As a big fan of Tomas Alfredsonâs movie, it seems odd to confess that Reeves has actually made the creepier film.
It doesnât have quite the same mood or crisp visuals and will inevitably be seen by some as the lesser work because it is a remake.
But it feels like Reeves spent a good deal of time going over the original novel, as well as the first film, and worked hard to create something that can stand on its own.
The horror genre has seen too many bad remakes over the last decade, along with films that omit genuine scares for voyeuristic sadism.
Let Me In is a rare exception, a film which builds on the original and makes for an unsettling horror which affects the head and the heart.
Let Me in is out at UK cinemas on Friday 5th October
The third film to explore the career of Tony Blair is a well staged drama about his political relationship with Bill Clinton.
Screenwriter Peter Morgan previously dramatised key periods in the career of the former British Prime Minister in The Deal (2003) and The Queen (2006), both of which were directed by Stephen Frears.
The latest film charts Blairâs relations with Clinton in the 1990s as he sought to form an alliance with a political soul mate who could package âthird-wayâ liberal politics to an electorate that had fallen for Thatcher and Regan.
The bulk of it deals with Blair (Michael Sheen) and Clinton (Dennis Quaid) debating  various issues in the late 1990s, whilst Cherie Blair (Helen McCrory) and Hilary Clinton (Hope Davis) look on and provide commentary on this transatlantic relationship.
The two major issues at this time were the Monica Lewinsky scandal which engulfed Clinton’s presidency and the Kosovo conflict in which Blair pressed his politically weakened US ally into military intervention.
Sheen can now do Blair blindfolded, so it is no surprise that he gives a convincing portrayal of the period when the former PM began to become enamoured with power and military intervention.
Quaid offers an impressive take on Clinton, which goes beyond surface mannerisms to suggest that, for all his flaws, he was a shrewd observer of political minefields.
Davis also manages to convey the cadences and mannerisms of Hilary Clinton with enough skill and class to suggest that she could have her own biopic.
But aside from offering accurate depictions of famous politicians, what is this film actually saying?
Essentially, it is a cautionary tale written from a post-Iraq perspective.
The energetic Blair, in his rush to war, is meant to mirror the later version that joined forces with George W Bush for the war which would ultimately wreck his legacy.
Although this means there is plenty of dramatic irony, often it feels a bit too cute. Clintonâs soothsaying speeches imbue him with an improbable amount of foresight and the scriptâs episodic nature means it occasionally feels like a current affairs checklist.
Technically, director Richard Loncraine handles everything with a good deal of assurance and the performances, production design, costumes and visuals all give it an authentic feel.
Compared to the previous films in which Sheen has played Blair, it comfortably fits into the trajectory Morgan has scripted. But as to how these films will age is another point.
This year has seen Blair loom large again after standing down in 2007. Just last month he released his unapologetic political memoirs and back in the spring Roman Polanski directed The Ghost, which offered a fictionalised version of Blair played by Pierce Brosnan.
This vision is perhaps the darkest Morgan has yet painted, offering a political figure convinced of his own righteousness and the need to see the world in black and white.
As such it foreshadows his determination to invade Iraq after 9/11. But whether this film fully sells this idea is open to question.
Would Blair have done it had 9/11 not happened? Morgan seems to suggest that is the case but it is certainly debatable issue right at the heart of the drama.
The end result is polished, but it seems to suggest ideas and conclusions which are shaky and speculative, to say the least.
One scene towards the end stretches credibility in terms of dialogue, as though everything is being tailored to fit a preconceived framework.
Whether you buy some of the notions in the film depends how how planned political power actually is – I tend to opt for the view that it may be more fluid and messy than The Special Relationship suggests.
However, this is still a film that contains much to enjoy. Although this political sub-genre Morgan helped to kick-start has lost some of its novelty, it is still a pleasure to see recent history examined on screen in an era of big-budget tentpoles and teen dramas about vampires.
Given the theatrical success and Oscar recognition of The Queen, you might wonder why has this film hasnât opened in cinemas.
It looks to all intents and purposes like a proper theatrical production, shot in widescreen with expensive production values, so why no cinema release?
As an HBO and BBC co-production, it premièred on HBO back in May and was initially scheduled for a UK theatrical opening that month, which was then cancelled.
Presumably, the distributors weren’t confident that a theatrical run was worth the cost and that a TV premiere was a better platform on which to launch the film.
It says a lot about the present commercial climate that the makers werenât confident of opening a more serious political drama like this at cinemas, despite all the talent involved.
The Special Relationship the UK will screen on BBC Two tonight (Saturday 18th) and will be released on DVD and Blu-ray on Monday 20th September.
Ben Affleckâs second film as director is a satisfyingly lean crime drama about bank robbers in Boston.
The town of the title refers to the Charlestown district of Boston which provides the setting and, as an opening title informs us, has produced generations of thieves.
Adapted from Chuck Hogan’s novel âPrince of Thievesâ, the story sees Affleck plays the leader of a gang who play cat and mouse with a local FBI agent (Jon Hamm) keen to bring them to justice.
After a heist goes slightly wrong, they fear that a hostage (Rebecca Hall) may have recognised one of them behind their masks. To complicate matters further, Affleckâs character soon falls for her which creates tensions with his fellow gang member and friend (Jeremy Renner).
Whilst not as strong as Affleckâs first outing as director, the quietly brilliant Gone Baby Gone, it nonetheless establishes him as a confident storyteller who can get draw compelling performances from his actors.
Affleckâs acting performance is also solid, cutting a likeable but anguished figure in the lead role whilst Renner has a scene-stealing supporting turn as an unpleasant, edgy sidekick.
Hamm is good value as the driven FBI agent. Even though at times his character feels a little too close to his Mad Men persona, he gives his role here a sense of gravitas and bite as he pursues Affleckâs gang.
The female parts are a little undercooked, as is often the case in male dominated crime dramas, although Hall does her best in an underwritten role and Blake Lively manages a major transformation for those that know her from the television show Gossip Girl.
The script â co-written by Affleck, Aaron Stockard and Peter Craig – feels like it has been forged in a good deal of research.
The local slang the characters frequently use and the little details of the robberies all add help to paint a convincing world, even if a couple of major plot points stretch that credibility.
Affleck has also cannily recruited some first-rate talent behind the camera: cinematographer Robert Elswit shoots contemporary Boston with a gritty but vibrant look, whilst editor Dylan Tichenor gives the pacing an extra snap and crackle during the set pieces (it is worth noting that both regularly work with Paul Thomas Anderson).
The score by Harry Gregson-Williams and David Buckley also adds to the overall mood, with the strings and piano giving certain scenes an extra emotional kick and at times it is reminiscent of the excellent Gone Baby Gone score.
When it comes to the fundamentals, The Town is a highly watchable and pleasingly old-fashioned piece of work. There is no CGI, no pandering to the geek crowd and the characters, dialogue and action are all executed without bluster or excess.
That said, this is very familiar territory for anyone who has seen crime dramas such as The Departed (2006) and Heat (1995).
In fact the parallels with Michael Mannâs film are striking to the point of distraction: a head to head battle between a cop and a thief; bank robberies involving automatic weapons; romantic entanglements; a protagonist struggling to escape his past; and the now-familiar âone last jobâ.
It doesnât detract from the overall qualities on display, but for viewers familiar with Mannâs film, it lingers like a ghost over stretches of the material.
That said The Town still has many qualities to admire. Even if it isnât especially groundbreaking, it holds the attention and is packaged with skill and efficiency.
Affleck has certainly had his fair share of ups and downs as an actor, but on the evidence of his first two films, he is quickly maturing in to a very fine director.
The Town opens in the US today and in the UK on Friday 24th September
A skilful blend of performance art, documentary and elaborate hoax, Iâm Still Here is a clever and frequently hilarious deconstruction of Hollywood celebrity.
Iâm Not There is the end result, a spoof in the vein of Borat and Bruno, that goes behind the scenes of Phoenixâs supposed life and blends it with media coverage from the time.
Beginning with some intriguing home movie footage of Phoenixâs childhood, it is essentially a raucous fly-on-the-wall document of Phoenixâs apparent ‘career suicide’ over the last two years.
The actor has clearly put a great deal of effort into creating a sublimely horrible alter-ego.
He has grown a beard, put on weight and not been afraid to perform this role in public, which gives the film an extra post-modern flavour.
We see him meeting with his publicist and agent, attempt to hook up with Sean âDiddyâ Combes, berate Ben Stiller about the script of Greenberg, get life advice from Edward James Olmos, rap at a hotel in Miami, take copious amounts of drugs, abuse his assistants and generally act like a delusional celebrity ogre.
The film gets really meta when it incorporates the very idea that this whole project as a hoax.
Phoenix gets paranoid that his assistant ‘Anton’ has been leaking information to the media, which leads to a particularly messy confrontation.
Throughout Phoenix arguably gives the performance of his career in playing this twisted version of himself, in which he toys with the audienceâs expectations of who and what he is. It is compelling and ludicrous in equal measure.
When this fake Joaquin is placed in real situations such as concerts, press junkets, airports filled with paparazzi and TV chat shows, the results are hilariously awkward.
At times it is all a bit too similar to the work of Larry Charles and Sacha Baron Cohen: an improvised comedy featuring a central character in real situations, shot in a vĂŠritĂŠ style on digital cameras.
But unlike Borat or Bruno, in which we know Baron Cohen is playing a role, this has the added dimension of Phoenix playing a version of himself, which has led to a debate about the authenticity of the film.
It seems absolutely clear, to me at least, that this whole project is an elaborate joke in which reality has been cunningly blended into the overall mix.
But does anyone actually believe that he wanted to give up acting to become a hip-hop star?
The idea that journalists and critics are actually taking this idea seriously seems like a joke in itself.
Certain sequences, especially the one with Stiller, seem staged and the parts with Diddy are also debatable.
The rapper was either duped or has impeccable comic timing. One line in which he declares an Affleck film (possibly Gone Baby Gone) to be âwhackâ is priceless.
But there are certain scenes where the mask of the film drops (perhaps intentionally?).
At one point his publicist is caught grinning backstage at the infamous Letterman taping, another features a seemingly scripted gag about Revolutionary Road and there is one piece of dialogue that seems to have been dubbed in post-production.
The conceit of the film is cunning as it plays around with our perceptions of who, or what, a celebrity is and gets added spice from Phoenix continuing his performance in areas where other actors wouldnât normally dare.
Certain moments hold a brilliantly awkward mirror up to modern celebrity: concerts featuring audiences filming everything on their phones, DIY paparazzi posting commentary on the web and a press junket for Two Lovers where Phoenix is âoffendedâ by journalists.
The bit where Phoenix announces his retirement to an entertainment reporter from Extra is pitch perfect, as it cuts the TV footage which ran that night with Affleckâs footage from a different angle.
This is almost the film in microcosm. By contrasting the nonsense world of showbiz journalism with the fake world of the documentary, Affleck has created a hall of mirrors in which one reflects the other.
By feeding the media machine deliberately confusing information during the making of the film, it seems like some outlets have been unable to process the overall joke, as part of the narrative involves their own reporting. Bamboozled? That was probably Affleck’s intention.
The director himself has been supremely coy about all this â his interviews at Venice were brilliantly evasive – and Iâm not sure how far they are going to take the concept now that the film is out in the U.S., albeit in limited release.
Iâm Still Here could be a performance art experiment where even the filmmakers have lost track of the monster they have created.
Phoenix is apparently going to return to Letterman next week, so Iâm sure that the debate will rumble on (even if he does or doesn’t turn up).
Either way, the nature of the material has given what is a fairly low-budget film a lot of free publicity.
The chatter will no doubt continue, especially amongst audiences, but the bottom line is that this is still one of the funniest portrayals of celebrity in recent memory.
Ambitious and technically dazzling, the latest film from director Gaspar NoĂŠÂ is also a disjointed exploration of life after death.
Since attracting controversy and acclaim with Irreversible (2002), Noe has returned to similarly grandiose themes and, like his previous film, presented them within a contemporary urban world.
Set in contemporary Tokyo, Enter The Void focuses on a young American drug dealer (Nathaniel Brown), his sister (Paz de la Huerta), and the various people he comes across whilst peddling his wares.
When a deal goes bad in a night club early on in the film, Oscar is shot and becomes a disembodied soul who can observe his loved ones and acquaintances like a ghost.
As this spectral journey progresses, we also get flashbacks of Oscarâs childhood and numerous other meditations on his life and ultimate death.
What makes the film particularly striking from is that we see much of it through the eyes of the protagonist, a conceit which is sustained with consummate technical skill by NoĂŠÂ and his crew.
Much of the film is a master class in cinematography, visual effects and editing, to the point where it could become a case study in film schools for those curious as to how various sequences were executed.
However, the stylistic virtuosity is matched by a grimy setting: a dank, urban underbelly filled with dirty toilets, strip clubs and all manner of shifty people doing dodgy things.
Although likely to turn off some viewers, as a depiction of that world it is convincing, despite all the visual trickery used to present it.
The performances are solid: Brown makes for a sympathetic protagonist, with a performance heavily reliant on his voice work, whilst del la Huerta portrays the emotional and physical demands of her role with considerable courage.
The wild, freeform way in which NoĂŠÂ explores death itself as some kind of existential, hallucinogenic trip is hugely ambitious, even if it doesnât always work.
Clumsy references to The Tibetan Book of the Dead and the loose nature of the narrative means that after about an hour the film starts to splutter and fracture.
But despite this, long stretches of the film are a remarkable assault on the senses.
Filled with strobe lighting effects, hypnotic sounds and even sequences set inside the human body, it is arresting, hallucinatory and disturbing, sometimes all at once.
This is precisely the kind of film that should be experienced in the cinema for the full effect and some sequences linger long after the end – one recurring scene was so effectively shot and edited, it jolted me out of my seat more than once.
Some will dismiss the ideas presented in the film as drug-fuelled pretension, but as a visual representation of what could happen when we die it is a fascinating and bold exploration of what is still a taboo subject in Western culture.
Compared to how many mainstream films feature death as something to be laughed at or perversely enjoyed, especially modern horror franchises, this makes the film all the more unusual.
Enter the Void has had a troubled journey to the screen with various cuts shown to different festivals over the last year, suggesting even NoĂŠÂ might have got lost inside the material.
A more definitive directorâs cut might surface in the future, but it is rare for any modern filmmaker to attempt this kind of material, one of dazzling technical skill and intense philosophical ambition.
It might not always work, but the finished film is unlike anything Iâve seen in recent memory. For that, at least, it deserves considerable credit.
Enter the Void is out at selected UK cinemas on Friday 24th September
Blu-ray won’t be as successful as DVD but it is still the best way to watch a properly restored film at home.
A recent post on The Guardian’s film blog by Shane Danielson titled ‘The devil is in Blu-ray’s detail‘ put forward the notion that the sharpness of Blu-ray is somehow a problem.
As someone who was once a partial sceptic of HD formats, at least until the industry sorted out the ludicrous format war and high prices, I read Danielson’s post with a mixture of intrigue and then gradual disbelief.
I suspect it was meant to be a contrarian think-piece putting forward the notion that the upgrade to Blu-ray isn’t really worth it.
After all, who needs to fork out extra for a format in which you can see the make-up on actorâs face? Isnât it all just a big money making scheme to make us replace our DVD collection?
Well, it is certainly true that commercial imperatives have driven the shift to Blu-ray, as broadcasters and consumers gradually move to digital and high definition.
If you want to buy a new TV, you will be hard pressed to find one that isn’t an HD set.
One of Danielson’s points is that too much detail revealed in a high definition version of a film can be a bad thing, but he makes some key mistakes in highlighting the Blu-ray versions of Psycho and The Godfather.
For a piece with the word ‘detail’ in the title, he gets Martin Balsam‘s name wrong (calling him ‘Robert’) and there is no mention whatsoever of how the whole film actually looks on the format.
Furthermore, it is a little silly to complain about the strings on Martian spaceships in the Blu-ray version of George Palâs The War of the Worlds, especially when no such version of the film actually exists. (I can only assume he is referring to the DVD version, which kind of undercuts his wider point).
Having actually seen the Psycho Blu-ray, I can only repeat my admiration for the team who oversaw its transfer as it looks marvellous and, as someone who has only ever seen it on television, the sharpness and clarity of the image makes a welcome change.
As for the make-up on Balsam’s head in a particular scene, it isn’t really noticeable unless you want to freeze the image and analyse the split second it occurs.
I get the idea that some people take issue when certain elements of a film are ‘corrected’ for the Blu-ray release, such as when DNR is used to smooth out the image (e.g. the new Predator Blu-ray) but in this case I don’t think the argument stands up at all.
I remember being in the Virgin Megastore in Times Square back in 2008, and pausing to look at a screen showing Coppola’s The Godfather, which had been released on Blu-ray a fortnight earlier.
It was the trattoria sequence, when Michael kills McCluskey and Sollozzo, and it looked great . . . in fact, it looked TOO great.
The colours were rich and burnished (that background red, in particular), the shadows were deep â yet at the same time, there was a precision to the images, a sort of hyperreal clarity, that didn’t jibe with my memory of having watched the film, either in the cinema or at home.
It seemed weirdly artificial, somehow, and watching it, I felt that I could almost see the grain of the film stock, the flicker and shudder of individual frames, such was the degree of visual information on offer.
I felt, suddenly, like Ray Milland’s character in The Man With the X-Ray Eyes. This could, I realised, drive me mad, if I let it.
Aside from the fact that it is highly dubious to make a judgement on a transfer from one scene observed in shop two years ago, he couldnât have picked a worse one to illustrate his point.
Anyone who actually watches the complete version of The Godfather on Blu-ray, rather than idly chatting to a Virgin Megastore employee, will actually realise this.
There is also a twenty minute feature titled ‘Emulsion Rescue’ which details the painstaking task of restoring this sequence, featuring interviews with director Francis Ford Coppola, cinematographer Gordon Willis and others involved in the process.
Explaining the full technical details on how that scene was restored, they highlight how digital technology was used with the co-operation of the filmmakers, helping preserve their original artistic vision.
With this in mind, there have been cases where the Blu-ray release of a classic film has caused some controversy.
This presents a peculiar conundrum. Digital technology allowed Friedkin to change the look of his own film for the Blu-ray version, but is he betraying his original vision from 1971 that first captivated audiences? Or is that his artistic right as director?
On the wider matter of the format as a whole, it is probably true to say that it will never be as popular or as profitable as DVD.
Last Christmas the current rate of sales was reportedly nowhere near the original projections Sony had for it a few years ago and the cost of consumers upgrading to new television equipment in a recession also stunted the uptake.
Perhaps the most useless aspect of Blu-ray Discs is BD-Live, which is meant to provide interactive experiences when you hook up your player to the Internet.
Aside from the technical hassle of actually connecting a Blu-ray player to your home internet connection (and I speak from bitter experience on this) the features aren’t all that appealing.
But bizarrely, BD-Live always seems to be one of the ‘selling points’ talked up by manufacturers and Blu-ray marketing campaigns when it is clearly rubbish, for now at least.
So with all the teething problems the format has had, why would I recommend it?
Unlike Danielson I don’t see any romance or inherent ‘magic’ in cathode ray tube televisions and I’m not suspicious of carefully restored digital transfers of great films.
A good Blu-ray simply looks far better than its DVD counterpart, with a much tighter and richer image. For the most part, it really is that simple.
The optimal experience for seeing any motion picture is still a fine print at a decent cinema, but aside from critics and cinephiles visiting repertory cinemas, how many times do viewers experience quality projection and sound at their local cinema?
Just in the last year I saw two films (Funny People and Sherlock Holmes – not exactly classics, admittedly) at a multiplex and the projection and image quality for both were appalling.
When you think of why DVD proved popular, it wasn’t just because of the relative cost but was also partly due to digital technology in the home rapidly catching up with that of the average cinema.
Another obstacle Blu-ray faced from early on was that the jump from VHS to DVD was much more noticeable to the casual consumer than the leap from DVD to the newer higher definition format.
Not every release looks pristine, but when they have had care and attention lavished on them the results can be stunning: Gone with the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, The Godfather trilogy, North By Northwest, Baraka, Blade Runner, The New World, The Dark Knight and Psycho are just some films that look incredible on Blu-ray.
As for the cost, they have come down in price a lot over the last 18 months to the point where many new releases are actually cheaper than DVDs were at a certain point in time.
Another misconception appears to be that you need to replace your whole library of DVDs.
This is incorrect as Blu-ray players do actually play DVDs, which means you can pick and choose which titles you want to see in glorious HD (e.g. The Godfather) and those you don’t (e.g. any film featuring Danny Dyer).
When discussing Blu-ray and future home video formats, someone often pipes up with a line about how we are all âdownloading films now anywayâ.
It is almost inevitable that some time in the future, the legal delivery of films to our homes will be via a next generation broadband pipe.
However, that is still some way off as most people still watch films on physical discs (DVD, Blu-ray) with a more targeted niche choosing digital downloads via iTunes, Netflix, Lovefilm, Amazon and presumably YouTube by the end of this year.
If you are a visual purist, it is highly unlikely that you will be able to get 1080p films via iTunes anytime soon as the size of the film. It seems 720p is more likely when Apple unveil their revamped ‘iTV’ box.
Whilst there is a convenience factor to digital downloads that will probably mean that Blu-ray is the last optical disc format, it will take a few years before mainstream viewers fully embrace full digital delivery via their television sets or other devices.
Blu-ray has had its problems and will eventually go the way of DVD and VHS, but there is still a lot to be said for the format, especially when it comes to revisiting classics that have been properly restored.
What follows is an action-comedy hybrid in which director Edgar Wright throws a barrage of visual artillery at the screen in order to recreate the look of comics and computer games.
This means when characters ring a doorbell we actually see the sound visualised with a âDing-Dongâ and when characters are punched we see âKa-Pows!â like the 1960s Batman series.
A bewildering array of techniques are employed throughout: split-screen, aspect-ratio shifts, zooms, CGI, animation, super-quick edits, Manga-styled transitions and laugh tracks are just some of the tools used in dramatising Pilgrimâs journey.
In some ways the ambition of the film is admirable. Like The Wachowski Bros’ Speed Racer (2008) it tries to do something genuinely different with the visual language of cinema.
But also like that film, it remains a hollow exercise in cinematic technique that contains little emotion or charm beneath the endless layers of visual distraction.
Compared to Wrightâs previous work, the central characters are surprisingly hard to care for. The protagonist is a dull, self-obsessed narcissist, whilst the girl he is fighting for doesnât seem to care all that much. As for the exes they are just levels to be completed.
Michael Cera now seems entombed in the nebbish screen persona audiences first saw in Superbad (2007). That splendid breakout performance has now become a depressing template for his subsequent career.
The exes he does battle with (including Chris Evans, Brandon Routh and Jason Schwartzman) are little more than one-note jokes and the whole narrative feels like TV episodes stitched together to resemble a feature.
Wright has previously managed to combine visual flair with genuine heart. With the TV series Spaced (1999-2001) and his last two films, Shaun of the Dead (2004) and Hot Fuzz (2007), he managed a great balance of humour, brains and genuine emotion.
This film has many surface similarities with Spaced: twenty-something slackers, a frenetic editing and shooting style, numerous pop culture references and a slow-burning romance.
But in Scott Pilgrim the techniques are turned up to such a degree that they squeeze the life out of the core story and it is hard to care about anything on screen.
The one noticeable improvement over Wrightâs previous films is the clarity and crispness of Bill Popeâs cinematography, but that only comes across in the more realistic scenes, which are frequently intercut with a barrage of hyperactive effects.
Certain sequences feel like a visual dirty bomb has gone off in the cinema. But for what? A romantic story with little romance and characters on screen who are almost literally cartoons?
Part of the wider problem is that the whole film is played as one long, fantastical joke, but there isnât really much at stake when humans explode into coins and produce flaming swords from their chests.
All the gaming references are a little misleading. Although it certainly tries to co-opt the feel of them, games have rules and logic, two qualities which are mostly absent here.
Are the fights on which the film hinges meant to be extended fantasies? It isn’t really clear, although by the middle of the film I no longer cared as nothing is ever really at stake.
The notion that the ‘evil exes’ are some of metaphor for the baggage of previous relationships is never really developed amidst all the glib chaos going on.
The whole film has seemingly been designed to play like a trailer: fast paced to the point of blurry incoherence and packed with moments to excite an expectant fan base.
Mainstream Hollywood needs directors like Edgar Wright as he is a genuinely fresh and talented voice, but Scott Pilgrim vs The World is major misstep.
There are some who will lap up the deep layers of sarcasm, Nintendo-nostalgia and cooler-than-cool vibes in this film.
A loyal, cult-like audience may feel it was made for them â in many ways, it was â but for those who arenât blinded by the aching hipness of it all, it is likely to prove a shallow exercise in geeky nonsense.
Aimed squarely at the generation who grew up watching action movies in the 1980s, The Expendables is ultimately a disappointing exercise in nostalgia.
The story involves a group of ageing mercenaries (Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lungdren, Terry Crews, Randy Couture) who accept a mission in a South American dictatorship.
It has the well-worn tropes of a genre picture, such as a gang of misfits, swarthy villains and a damsel in distress, whilst combining screen personas from different sub-genres.
Principally, we have Stallone (Rambo), Li (martial arts), Statham (the Transporter and Crank series) and various tough guys associated with wrestling or UFC.
We first meet them on a mission hunting pirates in Somalia and they are soon hired for a mission in South America where they come across a dictatorship run by a general (David Zayas) and a ruthless former CIA rogue (Eric Roberts).
After initially deciding they want no part of it, their conscience gets the better of them when they feel they have abandoned the general’s rebel daughter (Giselle Itie) and decide to return for a final showdown.
In a sense this follows on from Stalloneâs last two pictures: Rocky Balboa (2006) and Rambo (2008), which were designed for the star to revisit his most famous screen roles.
Both had a certain low-rent charm but The Expendables is a different beast: a sprawling, messy quilt of a film stitched together with little craft, wit or intelligence.
The whole project reeks of laziness: hire some famous action stars, blow stuff up and throw in some jokey cameos (notably Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger) and everything will be cool, right?
Well, it isnât. For a film with a reported budget of $85 million, this looks and feels too much like the low-rent stuffCannon Films pumped out during the 1980s.
Not only do we have some shoddy direction and editing, even the action set pieces are a let down. The use of CGI for blood, explosions and background is overused and often glaringly obvious, whilst the more reflective moments are cringe inducing.
All the women characters are walking clichĂŠs, either victims or frustrated partners, and the allusions to the real world â which include Somalian pirates and waterboarding â are clunky and out of place.
The best thing that can be said about the film is that the pacing is mercifully quick, although anytime the film pauses for some male bonding gags is often a cause for concern.
At the screening I saw, there were people cheering the opening credits as they popped up, as if this was a reunion concert for a super group of veteran action stars.
This of course is precisely the thinking behind the film, which is a curious hybrid: a low rent action film puffed up on steroids to resemble a modern action picture.
In effect, it is the first karaoke action film, aimed at a male audience eager to see stars of yesteryear kick some old school ass and blow stuff up all whilst winking at the audience.
Some have already said this is a male version of the Sex and the City movies, in that it is a familiar story with ageing stars, packaged for a specific demographic.
That is not a bad comparison and like those films there is a hollow, unimaginative core beneath all the elements that certain viewers will gobble up like comfort food.
Potentially, there is a sizeable audience for The Expendables, who not only love the idea of revisiting part of their youth but will also cut the film a lot of slack because it isnât meant to be taken that seriously in the first place.
But this is part of the problem. It feels tired when considered on its own merits, but more so in a summer where we have already had two other misfits-on-a-mission movies (The Losers and The A-Team).
A blockbuster with brains and style, Inception is Christopher Nolanâs most ambitious film to date, although how mainstream audiences respond to this intricate tale is an open question.
The story revolves around a gang of hi-tech thieves led by international fugitive Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio), who steals highly valuable information from peopleâs dreams.
After a job on a Japanese businessman (Ken Watanabe) goes wrong, he is faced with the daunting challenge of âinceptionâ: instead of stealing information, he must secretly plant some inside the mind of an important businessman (Cillian Murphy).
Assembling a team of experts (which includes Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page and Tom Hardy) who can help him execute the mission, he must also deal with his own troubled past, which endangers his ability to do the job at hand.
To say any more about the plot of Inception would be wrong, as one of the chief pleasures in this lavishly intricate film is the way in which it unfolds, puzzling and surprising the audience like a virtuoso magician.
For writer-director Nolan, this is a return to the territory of previous films such as Memento (2000) and The Prestige (2006), where he explores the themes of illusion and reality whilst playing an imaginative game with the audience.
We are firmly in the realm of science-fiction here, but interestingly the settings are very real world: imagine if Michael Mann had decided to mash up The Matrix with Oceanâs Eleven and youâll get some idea of the terrain here.
With some concessions, the subconscious dream worlds appear as realistic as the conscious waking world, creating a persistent question as to which is real. A clever conceit, given that cinema itself is arguably the closest art form to a dream.
DiCaprio is very solid in the lead role and his team have also been well cast: Joseph Gordon Levitt is a charming point man; Ellen Page nicely combines innocence and gravity as the rookie âdream architectâ; Tom Hardy relishes his part as a forgerer; Ken Watanabe is a pleasingly enigmatic boss figure; Cillian Murphy conveys surprising depth as the rich mark and Michael Caine hits the spot in a smaller than usual part.
In a more challenging role, Marion Cotillard doesnât quite hit the emotional mark required but her subplot is cleverly woven into the film and also bears some striking similarities to a key part of Memento.
The realistic touches inside a surreal world of dreamscapes, lends a sheen of believability and although the plot is an intricate hall of mirrors, there is enough exposition baked into the narrative to keep discerning audiences focused.
One could characterise Nolanâs Hollywood films so far as alternating between personal projects (Memento, The Prestige) and more commercial fare (Batman Begins, The Dark Knight), but Inception is an intriguing hybrid.
The dreamscapes and narrative open up at times like Russian dolls on acid, so it has a challenging art-house vibe, but it is also one of his most commercial to date in terms of scale and look.
There are many stylistic nods to action films of the 1960s: a team of experts assembled for a job; glamorous locations; vivid production design and costumes; a sense of mystery and wonder.
The huge success of The Dark Knight has allowed Nolan a particularly large canvas on which to paint and he has filled it with gleeful abandon, mixing the traditions of the spy thriller and heist movie inside a surreal, shifting dreamscape.
The cutting between the real and subconscious worlds bears many similarities to The Matrix (minus the bleak, sci-fi dystopia) and if it does hit home with audiences, then Iâm sure this will be obvious reference point for many viewers.
As is now customary for a Nolan production, the technical aspects of the film are especially outstanding.
The visual effects (by Double Negative and Plowman Craven) are stunning and blended in so well that they never feel like conventional CGI.
In addition, there are some highly imaginative sets overseen by special effects supervisor Chris Corbould, especially one amazing sequence involving a hotel, which bears comparison to those in Stanley Kubrick’s 2001.
A special mention must also go to editor Lee Smith, as the third act involves some inventive warping of time and space, which must have proved a particular challenge in the edit suite.
Warner Bros may be concerned that mainstream audiences will be confused by the puzzle Nolan lays out. It should play well to most critics and discerning audiences eager for intelligent summer entertainment.
The litmus test for many will be the extended opening sequence. Go with it and you should not have a problem with the cinematic maze Nolan has built.
A lot of Nolanâs previous work rewards repeated viewing, revealing a meticulous attention to detail and subtleties not always apparent first time around.
Inception is no different and I look forward to seeing it again with a better understanding of how the narrative will map out. It works on first viewing but there are times when the ride is intense and you have to hold on to keep your bearings.
For Warner Bros, this must have proved something of a nightmare to market but the trailers and TV spots so far have actually done a good job in selling the central concept of the film.
As far as the studio was concerned I imagine the risks of this production were offset by Nolanâs track record with the Batman films and DiCaprioâs A-list star power.
A sense of mystery has helped make a TV series like Lost such a success, so an optimist might predict that Inception could tap into a similar audience hungry for intrigue and it may even be one they return to in significant numbers.
The quality and surprising nature of this summer blockbuster has led to some effusive early praise, some of it a little over-the-top, but perhaps understandable given the current standard of studio films.
No doubt this will lead to a backlash of sorts (perhaps geeks wanting to stand out as refuseniks on Rotten Tomatoes?) but there is no denying the technical brilliance on display here in service of an audacious story.
Not all of the balls juggled stay in the air â and further scrutiny may uncover inconsistencies in the densely woven script â but, like a dream, you accept the thrilling reality of this film whilst you experience it.
Inception is a rare thing: a summer blockbuster filled with intelligence and craft, which in the current reality of remakes and sequels, feels like a dream itself.
For most football fans their collective memory of a World Cup comes from the television coverage, but after two mysteriously poor displays in South Africa, some fans are asking whether ITV are cursed when it comes to screening England games.
These gaffes come after a series of highly embarrassing and costly mistakes over the past 2 years: Evertonâs winning goal against Liverpool in a live FA Cup replay in 2009 was ruined by a rogue Tic-Tac advert; a high profile Nike World Cup advert was cut short during the Champions League final last month and an expensive Adidas advert was also the victim of technical problems.
On paper this is ridiculous. Iâm sure Fabio Capello and previous England managers didnât structure their team talks around which channel was showing the match.
It would seem tactics, fitness and players hitting form at the right time would play a much more important role in a teamâs success at a major international football tournament.
However, given the role that chance undoubtedly plays in football, it can be a game that inspires some remarkably superstitious behaviour:
As a striker Gary Lineker never shot at goal during the warm up, whilst as a presenter he has to say âIs this for real?â before every Match of the Day.
French defender Lauren Blanc regularly kissed the bald head of goalkeeper Fabien Barthez before games at France 1998
Argentine goalkeeper Sergio Goycochea allegedly urinated before facing penalty shootouts (âIt was my lucky charm âŚI was very subtle, nobody complained”)
England defender John Terry has confessed to having âaround 50â superstitions, one of which involves an Usher CD (and no, I’m not going to make any cheap Wayne Bridge gags)
At the 2006 World Cup, Noel Gallagher became a lucky mascot for Allessandro Del Piero. After the Oasis star witnessed Italyâs semi-final victory over Germany, the Italian forward forced his friend to wear exactly the same clothes for the final in Berlin. They not only won, but did so in a penalty shoot-out, which is rare for Italy.
It seems understandable that players like to relieve pre-game tension with a ritual or charm.
For fans watching on TV, who have no control over the game, superstition arguably performs a similar function in reducing stress and creating an illusion of optimism that things will somehow turn out for the best.
But how does the idea of a particular TV channel being a jinx on the England team actually stack up to the evidence?
Do England perform better at a World Cup when the game is live on the BBC? Or is this just an urban myth that has arisen around which coverage we prefer?
Looking at the historical data of which channel covered England games doesnât really reveal any scientific truths, after all an âITV jinxâ isnât really Newtonian physics.
But it does uncover some interesting factors which may explain why such an idea has taken root.
If you look closely at every World Cup where the BBC and ITV have covered England games, certain patterns and motifs do emerge.
Below is an analysis of every tournament where the the two broadcasters have covered England, with the following ground rules:
Each broadcaster gets 3 points for an England win, 1 point for a draw and 0 points for a loss.
Games decided on penalties are treated as straight victories or defeats.
ITV didnât exist until 1955 so the 1954 World Cup in Switzerland is not counted.
The 1962 World Cup in Chile poses a particular dilemma because satellite transmission was still in its infancy, meaning there was no live TV coverage in the UK. However, the BBC did broadcast the games on a two day delay, which in theory ITV could also have done. Therefore, the tournament is counted towards the overall score.
The current World Cup isnât counted until it is over (which if things don’t go as planned, could be Wednesday night)
So, are ITV really cursed when it comes to England?
SWEDEN 1958
When it comes to live international football, the BBC had already established itself as a World Cup broadcaster at the 1954 tournament in Switzerland.
So when ITV was launched in 1955 it was already playing catch up when they covered their first tournament in Sweden during 1958.
Despite being in its infancy, the newly formed commercial network covered the same number of games as the BBC, which were the 0-0 draw with Brazil and the 1-0 defeat to the USSR.
This was also the beginning of a long trend which saw the rival broadcasters cover the same matches, something that became more common in years to come.
But perhaps at this early stage of World Cup coverage, the BBC was deemed the more authoritative voice due to the fact that they were the older broadcaster who had formed a special niche in British cultural life since their birth in the 1920s.
England’s Results
Brazil 0 England 0 / Wednesday 11 June 1958 / Nya Ullevi Stadion, GĂśteborg / BBC – Kenneth Wolstenholme / ITV – Peter Lloyd and Gerry Loftus
U.S.S.R. 1 England 0 / Tuesday 17 June 1958 / Nya Ullevi Stadion, GĂśteborg / BBC – Kenneth Wolstenholme / ITV – Peter Lloyd and Gerry Loftus
Channel Head-to-Head: BBC 1 /Â ITV 1
CHILE 1962
1962 in Chile presented major logistical problems for TV channels in the UK, as satellite coverage was still in its infancy and pictures couldnât be beamed back live from South America.
BBC Radio covered Englandâs matches whilst the filmed footage had to be shipped back to the UK and edited before being broadcast in delay two days later.
Englandâs group games included a 2-1 defeat to Hungary, a 3-1 win over Argentina and 0-0 draw with Bulgaria, before ending with a 3-1 quarter-final defeat to eventual winners Brazil.
But ITVâs decision to not to cover the tournament at all gave the BBC a valuable opportunity to establish itself as the broadcaster to turn to when England were playing in a foreign tournament.
David Colemanâs spirited rant whilst introducing the infamous âBattle of Santiagoâ between Chile and Italy was also a classic World Cup moment cementing him as a voice we forever associate with this era.
England’s Results
Hungary 2 England 1 / Thursday 31 May 1962 / Estadio El Teniente, Rancagua / BBC Delayed Coverage – Kenneth Wolstenholme
England 3 Argentina 1 / Saturday 2 June 1962 / Estadio El Teniente, Rancagua / BBC Highlights – Kenneth Wolstenholme
England 0 Bulgaria 0 / Thursday 7 June 1962 / Estadio El Teniente, Rancagua / BBC Delayed Coverage – Kenneth Wolstenholme
Brazil 3 England 1 / Sunday 10th June 1962 / Estadio Sausalito, ViĂąa del Mar / BBC Highlights – Kenneth Wolstenholme
Channel Head-to-Head: BBC 4 / ITV 0
ENGLAND 1966
Englandâs most successful tournament was in 1966 when the nation triumphed on home soil.
From a broadcasting perspective BBC and ITV covered all the England matches live, so logic would dictate that their coverage would judged equally. But football and logic donât always make for natural bedfellows.
Ask any England fan what they remember about the final against Germany and one famous phrase sticks out.
As Geoff Hurst blasted in Englandâs fourth goal in a 4-2 win, the words of BBC commentator Kenneth Wolstenholme became legendary:
If you ask fans who was commentating for ITV that day you are probably likely to get a puzzled look (it was Hugh Johns).
Englandâs most famous sporting triumph was indelibly associated with a BBC voice.
England’s Results
England 0 Uruguay 0 / Monday 11 July 1966 / Empire Stadium, Wembley, London / BBC – Kenneth Wolstenholme / ITV – Hugh Johns and Dave Bowen
England 2 Mexico 0 / Saturday 16 July 1966 / Empire Stadium, Wembley, London / BBC – Kenneth Wolstenholme / ITV – Hugh Johns and Dave Bowen
France 0 England 2 / Wednesday 20 July 1966 / Empire Stadium, Wembley, London / BBC – Kenneth Wolstenholme / ITV – Hugh Johns and Dave Bowen (all except first half-hour)
England 1 Argentina 0 / Saturday 23 July 1966 / Empire Stadium, Wembley, London/ BBC – Kenneth Wolstenholme and Jimmy Hill / ITV – Hugh Johns and Dave Bowen
England 2 Portugal 0 / Tuesday 26 July 1966 / Empire Stadium, Wembley, London / BBC – Kenneth Wolstenholme and Walley Barnes / ITV – Hugh Johns and Dave Bowen
England 4 West Germany 2 / Saturday 30 July 1966 / Empire Stadium, Wembley, London / BBC – Kenneth Wolstenholme and Walley Barnes / ITV – Hugh Johns and Dave Bowen
Channel Head-to-Head: BBC 16 /Â ITV 16
MEXICO 1970
1970 in Mexico saw the first World Cup in colour television and both broadcasters covered an equal number of matches, although they decided to split some games for the group phase.
The BBC opted to show the 1-0 win over Romania, both channels showed the 1-0 defeat against Brazil and ITV went with the final group game against Czechoslovakia, which England won 1-0.
The fateful 3-2 defeat against West Germany in the quarter-finals was on the BBC, but two interesting trends had now emerged.
It was the beginning of both channels opting to show some games exclusively and others âtogetherâ. But it was also a further reminder of how culturally resonant BBC commentators had become.
Ask any armchair England fans which TV voices they remember from this World Cup and theyâll probably think of David Coleman (âPele! Jairzinho! There it is!â) and Kenneth Wolstenholme (âThat was sheer, delightful football!â) waxing lyrical about the Brazilians on the BBC.
Results
England 1 Romania 0 / Tuesday 2 June 1970 / Estadio Jalisco, Guadalajara / BBC – David Coleman and Don Revie
Brazil 1 England 0 / Sunday 7 June 1970 / Estadio Jalisco, Guadalajara / BBC – David Coleman and Don Revie / ITV – Hugh Johns and Billy Wright
Czechoslovakia 0 England 1 / Thursday 11 June 1970 / Estadio Jalisco, Guadalajara / ITV – Hugh Johns and Billy Wright
West Germany 3 England 2 / Sunday 14 June 1970 / Estado de Guanajuato, LeĂłn / BBC – David Coleman, Don Revie and Joe Mercer
Channel Head-to-Head: BBC 3 /Â ITV 3
FAILURE TO QUALIFY IN THE 1970s
That era of England winning and reaching the latter stages of a World Cup would take on an extra nostalgic glow as they failed to qualify for the tournaments in 1974 and 1978.
But in the absence of reaching those finals in Germany and Argentina, some infamous qualifying games took on a new significance.
In particular, the clash with Poland at Wembley in 1973 was a horror show.
It was an iconic defeat marking the end of an era.
Alf Ramsay resigned and England were not to reach another World Cup until 1982. How could we win a World Cup if would couldnât even reach one? Englandâs self image was forever tarnished.
But significantly for ITV, they covered the game exclusively live. Was the channel tainted by this disastrous result? Did England fans subconsciously link them with a painful defeat?
In the qualifiers for 1978, ITV repeated the same âtrickâ by covering a crucial qualifier.
This time it was with group rivals Italy and although England actually won 2-0 at Wembley, they eventually failed to qualify on goal difference. Again, were ITV unfairly linked with the dark days of Englandâs football in the 1970s?
SPAIN 1982
When England finally did return to World Cup action in the 1982 tournament in Spain, the template for modern TV coverage was set.
The opening qualifiers alternated between the two channels, with the BBC covering Englandâs 3-1 over France, whilst ITV opted for the 2-0 win over Czechoslovakia and the 1-0 win over Kuwait.
The second group stage (which would see the winners progress to the semi-finals) saw the BBC cover the 0-0 draw with West Germany whilst ITV chose the 0-0 draw with Spain, which ultimately wasnât good enough for England to progress.
Due to the nature of the group system that year (which was replaced to the present format in 1986) England somehow managed to exit the tournament despite not losing a game and only conceding 1 goal.
ITV covered more England wins in the tournament than the BBC, but had the misfortune to cover the frustrating final game, the 0-0 draw with Spain they had to win in order to progress.
Kevin Keegan missed an easy header in the dying minutes and it was symbolic of modern English frustrations at a World Cup. Good, but not good enough.
Was ITV becoming associated with Englandâs failure? Were they now becoming the âEnglandâ of football channels?
England’s Results
England 3 France 1 / Wednesday 16 June 1982 / Estadio San MamĂŠs, Bilbao / BBC – John Motson and Jimmy Hill
England 2 Czechoslovakia 0 / Sunday 20 June 1982 / Estadio San MamĂŠs, Bilbao /Â ITV – Martin Tyler and Jack Charlton
England 1 Kuwait 0 / Friday 25 June 1982 / Estadio San MamĂŠs, Bilbao / ITV – Martin Tyler and Jack Charlton
England 0 West Germany 0 / Tuesday 29 June 1982 / El Estadio Santiago BernabĂŠu, Madrid / BBC – Barry Davies and Jimmy Hill
England 0 Spain 0 / Monday 5 July 1982 / El Estadio Santiago BernabĂŠu, Madrid / ITV – Martin Tyler and Jack Charlton
Channel Head-to-Head: BBC Â 4 /Â ITV Â 7
MEXICO 1986
Mexico in 1986 was a tournament that started off disastrously in the group stages. The BBC covered the opening 1-0 defeat to Portugal, ITV broadcast the dismal 0-0 draw with Morocco and the action returned to the BBC for a crucial 3-0 win over Poland.
As the tournament entered the knockout phase, both channels covered the key England games.
This was a trend that continued up until the 1998 World Cup and the logic was fairly simple: England could go out and both channels (this being an era when there was literally only four to watch) wanted as bigger a slice of the audience as possible.
The 3-0 win over Paraguay in the Second Round was followed by the 2-1 quarter-final defeat to Argentina, in which Maradonaâs infamous hand of God goal was followed by one of sublime genius.
But for this tournament, it seemed pretty even as far as the broadcasters were concerned and it seems hard to recall anyone at the time referring to ITV bringing bad luck to England.
However, there still persists a strange theory that ITV somehow jinx those games also covered by the BBC.
England’s Results
Portugal 1 England 0 / Tuesday 3 June 1986 / Estadio TecnolĂłgico, Monterrey / BBC – John Motson and Jimmy Hill
England 0 Morocco 0 / Friday 6 June 1986 / Estadio TecnolĂłgico, Monterrey / ITV – Martin Tyler and David Pleat
England 3 Poland 0 / Wednesday 11 June 1986 / Estadio UniversitĂĄrio de Nuevo LeĂłn, Monterrey / BBC – Barry Davies and Jimmy Hill
England 3 Paraguay 0 / Wednesday 18 June 1986 / Estadio Azteca, Santa Ărsula, ciudad de MĂŠxico / BBC – John Motson and Jimmy Hill / ITV – Martin Tyler and David Pleat
Argentina 2 England 1 / Sunday 22 June 1986 / Estadio Azteca, Santa Ărsula, ciudad de MĂŠxico / BBC – Barry Davies and Jimmy Hill / ITV – Martin Tyler and David Pleat
Channel Head-to-Head: BBC 6 / ITV 4
ITALY 1990
With the 1990 World Cup in Italy, the two rivals fell in to the familiar pattern of alternating the group matches and simultaneously covering the knockout phase.
This tournament lives long in the memory for a generation of English football fans.
Reaching the semi-final was the best England had achieved since 1966 (and still is). The popularity of Paul Gascoigne foreshadowed the rise of the celebrity footballer.
Most significantly, a much needed optimism driven by success in the tournament helped English clubs back into European competitions after the ban following the Heysel disaster.
But after only just qualifying for the tournament with a 1-1 draw away to Poland, it is easy to forget the uproar that greeted Englandâs opening group game against Ireland in Cagliari.
The 1-1 draw was a dire match made worse by the long ball football favoured by the Irish under Jack Charlton. The channel that showed this infamous game? Step forward, ITV.
In contrast the BBC showed the next group clash with Holland, a much improved performance despite being a 0-0 draw, and the following 1-0 victory with Egypt.
For the knockout stages both channels opted to show England live, which covered the clashes with Belgium, Cameroon, West Germany and the 3/4th place playoff with Italy.
Most importantly, football hit a wider cultural nerve and a new generation of fans were hooked. These included the people who would pay monthly to see football on Sky and help kick start a boom which saw the creation of Premier League in 1992.
An unprecedented amount of money and overseas talent poured into the top-flight of the English game, although the long term effect on the national side was debatable.
England’s Results
England 1 Republic of Ireland 1 / Monday 11 June 1990 / Stadio Comunale Sant’Elia, Cagliari, Sardinia / ITV – Brian Moore and Ron Atkinson
Netherlands 0 England 0 / Saturday 16 June 1990 / Stadio Comunale Sant’Elia, Cagliari, Sardinia/ BBC – John Motson and Trevor Brooking
England 1 Egypt 0 / Thursday 21 June 1990 / Stadio Comunale Sant’Elia, Cagliari, Sardinia / BBC – Barry Davies and Trevor Brooking
England 1 Belgium 0 / Tuesday 26 June 1990 / Stadio Renato Dall’ Ara, Bologna / BBC – John Motson and Trevor Brooking / ITV – Brian Moore and Ron Atkinson
Cameroon 2 England 3 / Sunday 1 July 1990 / Stadio San Paolo, Fuorigrotta, Napoli / BBC – Barry Davies and Trevor Brooking / ITV – Brian Moore and Ron Atkinson
West Germany 1 England 1 [4-3 on pens] / Wednesday 4 July 1990 / Stadio delle Alpi, Torino / BBC – John Motson and Trevor Brooking / ITV – Brian Moore and Ron Atkinson
Italy 2 England 1 / Saturday 7 July 1990 Stadio San Nicola, Bari / BBC – Barry Davies and Trevor Brooking / ITV – Brian Moore and Ron Atkinson
Channel Head-to-Head:Â BBC 10 /Â ITV 7
[ad]
DO I NOT LIKE USA 1994
Interestingly, the domestic success of the Premier League in the 1990s was not reflected at international level.
After a woeful European Championships in 1992 (which saw manager Graham Taylor depicted as a turnip after losing to the Swedes) England somehow failed to qualify for the 1994 World Cup in the USA.
After a stuttering qualifying campaign that saw them lose to Norway, they faced Holland in a crucial deciding qualifier in Rotterdam in October 1993.
A 2-0 defeat effectively saw them miss out on qualification. It was the most infamous England game since 1973 and, just like that Poland match, ITV showed it exclusively live.
Although the BBC would show some poor England performances, it seemed ITV were developing an unfortunate habit for capturing the high profile stinkers.
The 1996 European championships in England, which saw the host nation nearly reach the final, was a further boost to the popularity of the game and expectation was sky high for the next World Cup.
FRANCE 1998
When England arrived in France for the 1998 tournament the modern media template was in full swing.
Pre-tournament crisis (manager Glen Hoddle dropping Paul Gascoigne from the final squad) was followed by ridiculously high expectations and massive media coverage.
Since Euro 96, each successive tournament featuring the national side seems to grow exponentially in terms of hype and it is easy to forget now (post-2002 and 2006) what a frenzy there was surrounding Englandâs first World Cup since Italia 90.
As far as TV coverage was concerned, there was now a regular pattern as to how the broadcasters divided up the games.
They would alternate until England reached the quarter or semi-final stage and from then on both would show the games live (how optimistic that sounds now!).
The BBC opted for the opening group game against Tunisia. Anchor Des Lynam slyly greeted the afternoon weekday audience with the line âshouldnât you be at work?â, before England won 2-0.
ITV had opted for the second group game against Romania, presumably because the evening kick off time meant a prime time audience. Bad choice as it turned out, as England not only lost 2-1 but did so with a particularly painful stoppage time goal which came minutes after a dramatic equaliser from newcomer Michael Owen.
Needing a win against Columbia in their final group game to go through, it seemed inevitable that the BBC would cover the 2-0 win over Columbia. Failure to win the group pitted them in the tough half of the draw and they lost on penalties to Argentina after drawing 2-2 in extra time.
The game was on ITV and was for several years the largest audience in the channelâs history. But despite being a ratings success with around 25 million viewers tuning in, it is my theory that this tournament was where the notion of an ITV curse began to form.
Quite simply, there were four England games in total. When they played on the BBC, they won. When they played on ITV, they lost. As the first World Cup since Italia 90, directly following the success of Euro 96, this was a tournament firmly in the glare of modern media overload.
A consequence of these was that key defeats became associated with ITV. Unfair? Irrational? Yes, clearly it is both unless someone uncovers evidence that sinister ITV operatives somehow bribed referees and drugged England players before games.
Englandâs exit in this World Cup was only the second time they went out on penalties. Unfortunately for ITV, commentator Brian Moore provided a bizarre flourish to their exit.
As David Batty ran up to take the fateful penalty in the shootout Moore inexplicably asked co-commentator Kevin Keegan if he was going to score. Keegan was in an impossible situation.
If he had said no then he would be âblamedâ for the miss, but if Batty missed he would look stupid. Within a second it was the latter, but this bizarre ITV moment seemed to sum up Englandâs recent World Cup adventures: excitement, expectation and disappointment.
Another factor that may have given rise to superstitions during this period was when manager Glen Hoddle recruited a faith healer as part of the England coaching staff. Whether it had an effect on ITVâs luck is unproven.
England’s Results
England 2 Tunisia 0 / Monday 15 June 1998 / Le Stade VĂŠlodrome, Marseille / BBC – Barry Davies and Trevor Brooking
Romania 2 England 1 / Monday 22 June 1998 / Stade Municipal, Toulouse / ITV – Brian Moore and Kevin Keegan
England 2 Colombia 0 / Friday 26 June 1998 / Stade FĂŠlix-Bollaert, Lens BBC – John Motson and Trevor Brooking
Argentina 2 England 2 [4-3 on pens] / Tuesday 30 June 1998 / Stade Geoffroy-Guichard, Saint-Ătienne / ITV – Brian Moore and Kevin Keegan /
Channel Head-to-Head: BBC 6 / ITV 0
KOREA/JAPAN 2002
But by the 2002 tournament in Korea and Japan, there was a sense of dĂŠjĂ vu.
The rollercoaster qualifying campaign saw the resignation of Kevin Keegan, the recruitment of the first ever foreign manager (Sven Goran Eriksson), a 5-1 win away to Germany and a last-minute qualification goal against Greece.
Unluckily for ITV, the early kick off times (due to the Asian time zone) meant there was no prime time clashes, with games coming on at breakfast or lunchtime.
A particularly strange ITV moment happened when they covered the opening game of the tournament between France and Senegal. Anchor Des Lynam (a high-profile defector from the BBC) asked pundit Paul Gascoigne what he knew about the African side. Gazza simply answered: “Nothing”.
Their bad luck continued as they covered the disappointing opening 1-1 draw with Sweden, whilst the BBC broadcast the victorious 1-0 win over tournament favourites Argentina and the decisive 0-0 clash with Nigeria that saw them progress.
Possibly because the kick off times in this tournament were much earlier than ITV would have liked, they opted to screen the Englandâs knockout games with Denmark (3-0 win) and Brazil (a 2-1 defeat) alongside the BBC.
But when they go head to head with the BBC in these matches, ITV always get a smaller share of the audience.
Is this because audiences want uninterrupted coverage with no adverts? Better commentary? Or do some people really believe in that curse?
England’s Results
England 1 Sweden 1 / Sunday 2 June 2002 / Saitama Sutajiamu Niimarumarunii, Saitama-shi/ ITV – Clive Tyldesley and Ron Atkinson
Argentina 0 England 1 / Friday 7 June 2002 / Sapporo DĹmu, Toyohira-ku, Sapporo-shi / BBC – John Motson and Trevor Brooking
Nigeria 0 England 0 / Wednesday 12 June 2002 / Ĺsaka-shi Nagai RikujĹ KyĹgijĹ, Ĺsaka-shi / BBC – John Motson and Trevor Brooking
Denmark 0 England 3 / Saturday 15 June 2002 / Niigata Sutajiamu, Niigata-shi / BBC – John Motson and Trevor Brooking / ITV – Clive Tyldesley and Ron Atkinson
England 1 Brazil 2 / Friday 21 June 2002 / Shizuoka Stadium Ecopa, Fukuroi city / BBC – John Motson and Trevor Brooking / ITV – Clive Tyldesley and Ron Atkinson
Channel Head-to-Head: BBC 7 / ITV 4
GERMANY 2006
By 2006, the tournament in Germany reached new levels of hype.
ITV were salivating at the prospect of European kick off times and huge-ratings in an era when multi-channel TV has eaten away at large single audience shares for major channels.
With the England squad featuring its supposed âgolden generationâ, the hype for the tournament was so great that one news channel even provided live coverage of Englandâs coach driving off to the airport.
The BBC had the uninspiring opening match with Paraguay, which saw England win 1-0.
ITV then had the misfortune to cover another World Cup clash where England were truly dire as they laboured to a 2-0 win over Trinidad and Tobago.
Things improved slightly for their coverage of the 2-2 draw with Sweden and a massive audience of 21 million tuned in.
For the knockout phase the BBC covered the tedious 1-0 win over Ecuador, whilst both channels covered the exit on penalties to Portugal after a 0-0 draw.
I find it odd to think that this was a particularly ‘cursed’ World Cup for ITV as England played just as badly on the BBC.
With Rooney coming back from injury, the two strikers only played alongside each other for 30 seconds during the entire competition.
England’s Results
England 1 Paraguay 0 / Saturday 10 June 2006 / Commerzbank-Arena, Frankfurt am Main, Hessen / BBC – John Motson and Mark Lawrenson
England 2 Trinidad and Tobago 0 / Thursday 15 June 2006 / easyCredit-Stadion, NĂźrnberg, Bayern/ ITV – Clive Tyldesley and Gareth Southgate
Sweden 2 England 2 / Tuesday 20 June 2006 / Rhein-Energie-Stadion, KĂśln, Nordrhein-Westfalen / ITV – Clive Tyldesley and Gareth Southgate /
England 1 Ecuador 0 / Sunday 25 June 2006 / Gottlieb-Daimler-Stadion, Stuttgart, Baden-WĂźrttemberg / BBC – John Motson and Mark Lawrenson
England 0 Portugal 0 [1-3 on pens] / Saturday 1 July 2006 / Veltins Arena, Gelsenkirchen, Nordrhein-Westfalen / BBC – John Motson and Mark Lawrenson / ITV – Clive Tyldesley and Gareth Southgate
Channel Head-to-Head: BBC 6 / ITV 4
FINAL RESULT
[Click here for a larger version of the above image]
So, it would seem that England have done better at World Cups when the BBC cover the games.
Even if you discount the 1962 tournament which ITV didn’t cover, the Beeb still comes out on top.
Does this mean ITV are cursed?
I think the notion is a fairly recent one and any kind of conclusion as to why this superstition has grown needs to be placed in some kind of context.
WORLD CUP DĂJĂ VU FOR ENGLAND
The modern World Cup for England works like this. First there is the hype. Then there is some bad luck. And finally there is elimination due to a bogeyman or scapegoat, sometimes both.
The massive hype across all media usually features references to 1966 and the assertion that England are going to win the tournament, despite history and statistics suggesting otherwise.
The bad luck often features injuries to key players before or during the tournament, such as David Beckham in 2002, Wayne Rooney in 2006 and Rio Ferdinand in 2010.
There is also a likely clash with a former wartime enemy. Germany (1966, 1979, 1982 and 1990) or Argentina (1986, 1998 and 2002) often fit the bill and this year we have already had USA playing the role.
For good measure, the eventual elimination on penalties is usually blamed on a scapegoat. This can be a dodgy referee, a hapless player or a cheat.
ITV have been caught up in this modern madness that surrounds England at World Cups.
Although it represents the rare commercial opportunity of guaranteed ratings (especially if England do well), we also shouldn’t underestimate one of the main reasons the British public love the BBC: the lack of adverts.
The commercial nature of ITV also means its coverage of a tournament is filled with hype and over-optimism, which possibly feels worse when England go out.
Added to this are some truly infamous qualifying defeats (Poland in 1973 and Holland in 1993) broadcast exclusively live on ITV.
Most people probably have forgotten this, but it may linger in the collective subconscious of England fans and provides ammunition for irrational thinking.
The years when they covered the Premier League (2001-2004) also loom large when a failed 7pm timeslot and ill-advised touches such as the âtactics truckâ made BBCâs Match of the Day seem the proper home for football highlights. Ron Atkinson’s racist outburst against Marcel Desailly after a Champions League tie in 2003 further tarnished the channel’s image.
On top of this, there is the logic that our national broadcaster should cover our national team. The fact that BBC always beat ITV by a large margin in the ratings when they both show England games would seem to suggest this, as there isnât much to separate them on a purely technical level.
The BBC are in an interesting position: if England go through after playing Slovenia on Wednesday (the full permutations are here), then the myth will grow that they are England’s lucky channel, even though England haven’t yet lost on ITV in this World Cup.
Is this all fair? No, clearly it isnât. Like certain aspects of football, the perception that ITVâs coverage is a jinx on the England team is riddled with illogical thinking and superstition. But football is a superstitious game.
Why blame our grass roots infrastructure, our delusions of grandeur, our short-term strategies for the national team and our underperforming players when we can simply say that ITV brings us bad luck?
* UPDATE 20/06/10*
SOUTH AFRICA 2010
Since originally posting this, England’s campaign in South Africa has ended after a disastrous 4-1 defeat to Germany in the Second Round.
On reflection, the tournament fitted the usual pattern of excessive hype followed by massive deflation.
But what made the end of this campaign interesting was that there was no easy scapegoat, as the manner and scale of the defeat was so crushing.
Obviously the main villain would appear to be Uruguayan referee Jorge Larrionda and his assistants Mauricio Espinosa and Pablo Fandino, as even FIFA have since apologised for the now infamous decision.
However, this was England’s worst ever defeat at a World Cup and the woeful manner in which England were outfought and outclassed has seen blame spread amongst various scapegoats: manager Fabio Capello, the squad, the FA, the Premier League and even the footballing culture in England.
But how did ITV fare against the BBC? Like 1998, England only played four games and they were split evenly amongst the two broadcasters.
The first two games were on ITV and they were unlucky enough to capture two poor performances (the Algeria one was a particular stinker), whilst the BBC screened the crucial win against Slovenia.
Although both channels will be disappointed at England’s exit, ITV may be secretly relieved that the German defeat was screened exclusively on BBC.
The ‘curse of ITV’ would have gone into overdrive if the commercial channel had screened the match.
But my guess is that this superstition will still be around the next time England play in an international tournament.
Why? A superstition is easier to understand than the very deep problems that afflict England at international level.
England’s Results
England 1 USA 1 /Â Saturday 12 June 2010 /Â Royal Bafokeng Stadium, Rustenburg /Â ITV – Clive Tyldesley and Andy Townsend
England 0 Algeria 0 /Â Friday 18 June 2010 /Â Green Point Stadium, Cape TownITV – Clive Tyldesley and Andy Townsend
Slovenia 0 England 1 / Wednesday 23 June 2010 /Â Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium, Port Elizabeth / BBC – Guy Mowbray and Mark Lawrenson
Germany 4 England 1 /Â Sunday 27 June 2010 – /Â Free State Stadium, Manguang/Bloemfontein /Â BBC – Guy Mowbray and Mark Lawrenson
The Killer Inside Me is an interesting adaptation of Jim Thompson‘s dark 1952 novel, although like a lot of films tagged as ‘controversial’ is neither as accomplished or shocking as its reputation might suggest.
Set in a small Texas town, it is the story of a deputy sheriff (Casey Affleck) who is a closet sociopath, covering up his corrupt ways with increasingly cunning and desperate actions.
Among the people who cross his path are a local prostitute (Jessica Alba), his schoolteacher girlfriend (Kate Hudson), the Sheriff (Tom Bower), a local businessman (Ned Beatty), a local union leader (Elias Koteas), the suspicious county attorney (Simon Baker) and a grizzled lawyer (Bill Pullman).
Only the second film he’s made set in America, it is a reasonably compelling portrait of Thompson’s literary vision.
John Curran‘s script captures the action and tone of the novel in an efficient manner, using for voiceover to clever effect by drawing us closer to the central character.
The production design and period detail paint a convincingly grimy portrait of small town 50s America, where corruption and dark deeds simmer beneath the surface of a society about to undergo major convulsions.
Unusually for this material, Winterbottom and regular cinematographer Marcel Zyskind have opted for a fairly bright visual palatte, which gives the action a strange and arresting quality in contrast with the shadows and dutch angles reminiscent of classic film noir.
Given that his character dominates the film, much hinges on the performance of Affleck in the lead role, and he is memorably creepy, managing to convey the pathological thinking and sinister charm of someone in a dangerous position of authority.
There are eerie similarities with his role in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (both characters even share the name Ford) and he is fast becoming one of the most interesting actors currently working in Hollywood.
The other performances aren’t quite on the same level, although Beatty and Pullman fit their roles very nicely, and it is a shame that Alba and Hudson feel miscast in their roles, despite containing some of their best work in quite some time.
Overall, it is an impressive adaptation with some fine acting but there is something missing in how the film moves along. At times the languid pacing and mumbling dialogue become distracting, especially when a lot of narrative threads are being weaved and eventually tied up.
This is apparent in the disappointing climax, which not only stretches credibility but is also a little overcooked in terms of the visuals and action.
Given the controversy surrounding this film at Sundance and on its recent UK release, you might be forgiven for thinking that this is one of the most violent films in recent memory.
There are two disturbing sequences (one of which is particularly brutal), but by modern standards of they don’t really compare with the violence in films like Irreversible (2002), Switchblade Romance (2003), Hostel (2006), or the Saw sequels.
But is the shocking nature of the acts on screen dictated solely by gender? Is violence somehow less shocking if done to a man? A child? An animal?
In the context of the film, surely the sequence raising most hackles is there to accurately depict the emotional and physical destruction wrought by violence? It is hard to watch, but then it is meant to be.
Some critics have labelled Winterbottom and the film as ‘misogynist‘ because the male characters don’t suffer as much as the females. This is perverse logic. Do we need quotas on how many male and female characters suffer on screen?
When it comes to the climactic scene, another sequence that has caused anger, a certain character’s actions are sadly plausible and, in any case, surely the aim of these scenes was to render Thompson’s material faithfully?
Cinema is a medium with a unique directness and throughout its history many films have pushed the social boundaries with The Wild Bunch (1969), Straw Dogs (1971), A Clockwork Orange (1971) and Reservoir Dogs (1992) all attracting controversy for the way in which they depicted violence.
But I doubt if The Killer Inside Me will actually be remembered alongside these landmark controversies.
It is an accomplished adaptation, not without its flaws, and when future audiences stop to consider the film, they will have the benefit of doing so without the reductive shrieking from the media sidelines.
Every four years Hollywood studios and European film distributors have to deal with the world’s largest sporting event, the FIFA World Cup, which traditionally keeps potential cinema goers at home in front of the TV.
Added to this, the major studios are frustrated that their expensive blockbusters aimed at young males take a hit from a sporting event which keeps this very demographic glued to televisions for a whole month.
You may have noticed that Iron Man 2 opened in the UK before the US and part of the reason was because Marvel and Paramount wanted to maximise the grosses in territories before the football begins on June 11th.
The Film Distributors’ Association – the umbrella group that represents the companies releasing films at UK cinemas – recently released a trailer that showcased a lot of the films that will be screening this summer and their chief executive Mark Batey said:
“A lot more people love the movies than love football”
Clearly he was trying to be bullish about films at the cinema as an alternative to football on the TV.
But how much of an effect has the World Cup had in previous years?
According to data from the UK Film Council, 2002 was a bumper year for cinema admissions – the biggest of the decade in fact – but the very early kick off times (often at breakfast and lunchtime)Â in the 2002 tournament meant that box office wasn’t affected as much.
But in 2006 when the tournament was hosted in Germany, kick off times in the afternoon and evening meant that UK box office admissions dipped 5% during the tournament.
This summer the tournament is in South Africa and a similar time zone to Europe, which means that it is highly likely that releases during the festival of football will be affected.
So far Iron Man 2 and Robin Hood are the major studio releases to open early and get a good few weeks box office around the globe before the tournament begins.
But what of the period just before and during the World Cup?
Traditionally, distributors try to counter the males staying in to watch the football by releasing films that skew towards the female audience who want to avoid it.
In this respect Sex and the City 2 (May 28th) is hoping to cash in on this audience, although they are hoping to make their real cash before the tournament starts on June 11th.
The international poster explicitly makes light of the fact that there are ‘other ways to score’.
The counter-programming also works for quirkier films not expected to be smash hits like Greenberg (June 11th), MacGruber (June 18th) and Get Him To The Greek (June 25th).
Twilight and Shrek fans will no doubt assure these films a big opening but if England do get to the final – a big if, admittedly – the studios can expect the media coverage and opening grosses to be affected by football fever.
After the tournament ends on July 11th, it is noticeable that the big films return with a vengeance: Inception (July 16th), Toy Story 3 (July 21st), The A-Team (July 28th), Knight & Day (August 6th) and Salt(August 20th).
It is also noticeable that two releases which would could conceivably be released in the summer have been shifted to September, with Jonah Hex (September 24th) and Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps (September 24th).
The Wall Street sequel was actually scheduled for an April release but perhaps Fox felt that it had a better shot at earning more money outside the spring/summer season.
Set in the 12th century, Robin Hood sees an archer named Robin Longstride (Crowe) returning to England from the Crusades with a small band of followers, after King Richard the Lionheart (Danny Huston) has been killed in battle.
After a chance encounter with a fallen knight named Sir Robin Locksley, Robin returns to Nottingham and discovers the oppression of the villagers by the Sheriff of Nottingham (Matthew Macfadyen) and the danger posed to the newly crowned King John (Oscar Isaac) from a suspiciously bi-lingual nobleman (Mark Strong).
When Robin assumes the identity of Locksley, he meets the knight’s father, Sir Walter (Max von Sydow) and his widow, Lady Marion (Cate Blanchett). Gradually he gets caught up in the intrigue of John’s court, the possibility of a French invasion and a society where the poor are taxed heavily to fund foreign wars.
Strikingly different from previous feature films about Robin Hood (The Adventures of Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves), this has a wider political scope, is more embedded in the historical intrigue of the time and has a lavish attention to period detail, even if historians will have a field day picking out inconsistencies and inaccuracies.
This an origin story whose antecedents are not previous versions of the myth, but rather Scott’s own historical epics: Gladiator (2000) and Kingdom of Heaven (2005).
The presence of Crowe as a solider who goes rogue has obvious echoes of his turn as Maximus Decimus Meridius, whilst the depiction of the Crusades and medieval warfare also touches upon an area Scott has visited before.
As you might expect from a Scott production, the technical contributions are generally excellent: the period detail includes some remarkable blending of English locations, built sets and CGI; whilst the editing (Pietro Scalia) and cinematography (John Mathieson) give a real kick to the set-piece sequences.
Crowe and Blanchett have undeniable screen charisma, even if their characters don’t really come alive as other Robin and Marians have done (notably Sean Connery and Audrey Hepburn in Richard Lester’s 1976 film) and some of the villains are disappointingly one-dimensional, with Strong and Isaac given particularly wafer-thin roles.
Audiences might be surprised how little there is here of the familiar Robin Hood template involving a maverick folk hero robbing from the rich to give to the poor.
Given the current economic times, when a proposed new tax on banks is even named after him, this Robin Hood doesn’t really do that much wealth redistribution, which must rank as a missed cultural opportunity.
The screenplay by Brian Helgeland feels like a patchwork of ideas grafted together – it was reportedly rewritten from a project about a heroic Sheriff of Nottingham (!) – and although some of the ideas and avenues it explores are intriguing, there are too many characters left with too little to do. Robin’s gang of men, Van Sydow’s Sir Walter, William Hurt’s Earl of Pembroke (who looks strangely like Ridley Scott) and Mark Addy’s Friar Tuck are all given relatively short shrift.
It is also frustrating that after 139 minutes we end up where most Robin Hood films begin, making you wonder why they got sidetracked with all the historical sub-plots instead of getting directly to the meat of the legend.
That said, there are some unintentional cultural touchstones: the unifying of rival English factions to face a common enemy has echoes of the new UK coalition government, the plight of the poor mirrors recent Greek protests at austerity measures and – most timely of all – French audience members may be raising some eyebrows later tonight when the film opens the Cannes film festival.
Universal possibly see this as the beginning of a franchise, but in order for that to happen it will have to perform very strongly in a competitive climate at the global box office.
There is something pleasingly old fashioned about this version of Robin Hood compared to the superhero pyrotechnics Hollywood unleashes on the public every summer, but whether it can achieve the same level of critical and commercial success as Gladiator is doubtful.
The feature directorial debut of Chris Morris depicts a group of bungling suicide bombers and alternates slapstick comedy with sombre satire.
When Four Lions was first announced, this promised to be another taboo-shattering project from one of the most brilliant satirists of his generation. After pioneering work in radio (On the Hour) and television (The Day Today, Brass Eye) which lampooned media and politics with diamond-sharp precision, it seemed like a bold and fascinating prospect.
Set in an unnamed northern town, it centres around four disenchanted young men: Omar (Riz Ahmed) is the unofficial leader and determined to become a martyr for oppressed Muslims around the world; Waj (Kayvan Novak) is an impressionable recruit who does what Omar says; Barry (Nigel Lindsay) is a white Islamic convert obsessed with operational detail; and Faisal (Adeel Akhtar) is struggling trying to train crows to fly bombs through windows.
Morris has said that he conducted an enormous amount of research into the subject of Islamic extremism in modern Britain and there are veiled references to the July 7th bombings, the failed attacks of 2007 and other stories of home grown terror since 9/11.
There are many sequences which depict the incompetence of young men trying to cause terror and frequently failing. But perhaps the most interesting thing is how Morris complements their comic idiocy with the shallow despair of front line jihadists trying to find meaning in murder.
The result is an interesting patchwork that falls somewhere between comedy and drama. In terms of Morris’ previous work, it is a long way from the slick ingenuity of The Day Today or Brass Eye and much closer to the creepy discomfort of Jam, the television version of his radio show Blue Jam.
But even these comparisons aren’t exact. If anything, this is a spiritual sibling of In the Loop, another film about the War on Terror, directed by Armando Iannucci who previously worked with Morris on The Day Today.
Although that film focused on the political hypocrisies behind the War on Terror, Four Lions depicts the moral absurdities of the War of Terror.
Where it really hits home is in the relentless focus  on the desperation of suicide bombers as they struggle with the moral and practical dimensions of killing themselves for an ideal.
Comedy often arrives in surprising bursts, often involving surreal touches like processed cheese, rap and a group sing-along to Toploader’s Dancing in the Moonlight.
This hilarity is tempered by more ambiguous scenes involving the strange motives of ‘family men’ who think that it is moral to kill innocent people or are just too confused to even tell the difference.
The acting is of a high standard, especially Riz Ahmed in the main role who gives his character a surprising emotional depth despite the buffonery going on in other sections of the film.
Like In the Loop, the script is undercut with a biting intelligence but is less successful than that film in giving a wider context to the motives of the main characters.
There are scenes in the final third that touch upon the security forces response to terrorism but – without giving too much away – they don’t quite paint the rounded picture Iannucci achieved with his film.
Overall this is ultimately a brave and commendable attempt by Morris to tackle a tricky subject. For the most part it works well, but the film where he unleashes his many talents to full effect probably lies somewhere in the future.
The sequel to Iron Man is a sporadically entertaining follow up to the 2008 original but suffers by introducing a raft of new characters from the wider Marvel universe.
When the first film was about to be released, it was something of an unknown quantity: the Iron Man character was not as famous as Batman, Spider-Man or Superman; it was self-financed by Marvel; lead actor Robert Downey Jnr had been through some well documented troubles; and Jon Favreau was new to directing a tent-pole release like this.
Despite those question marks, it was a genuine mainstream success that proved a major hit at the global box office and was warmly received by the critics, to the point where this sequel is one of the most hotly anticipated blockbusters of the summer.
The basic story of this franchise concerns a billionaire inventor named Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jnr) who, after being captured by terrorists, invents a robotic suit that allows him to atone for his past as an arms dealer.
This one starts with him reaping the acclaim as an all-American hero who has “successfully privatised world peace”.
However, various problems emerge: the US military and a rival defence contractor (Sam Rockwell) want access to his technology; a mysterious Russian inventor (Mickey Rourke) is hell bent on revenge; and Stark faces a major health from wearing the Iron Man suit.
Like the first film, this has solid foundations: the lead characters are engaging and funny (especially Downey Jnr, who was perfectly cast in the lead role), the blend of banter and action is good and there are some terrific visual effects from ILM, especially the blending of the mechanical suit with the CGI one that flies around.
The problems emerge when characters from S.H.I.E.L.D. start to turn up, principally Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) and Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson).
If you stuck around until the end of the credits sequence for the first film, you would have seen a cameo from Nick Fury and later that summer in The Incredible Hulk (another Marvel character) Tony Stark his own post-credits cameo.
But this to me hints at a wider malaise amongst Hollywood studios, who now pander too much to the geek community.
It is a trend that has gathered pace since the enormous success of the X-Men and Spider-Man films over the last decade.
With the rise of events like Comic-Con, it seems like studios have become addicted to chasing this market, to the point where there are detailed panels and press conferences about films months before they are actually released.
In the case of Iron Man 2, it seems like a lot of compelling elements have been drowned out by trying to cram in all of this other stuff designed to make comic book fans gasp ‘awesome!’ when they read about it on sites like Ain’t It Cool.
This extended fanboy hype and pre-judgement is already a major problem, but in the case of this film the more compelling elements, such as Stark’s relationship with his assistant Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) and his conflict with the military, get crowded out by other stuff.
There was one stretch where Mickey Rourke’s character (who is pivotal) seems to be off screen for such a long time that when he returns, it seems like he’s been on holiday.
When the big climax arrives, it doesn’t have the necessary impact because so many threads have been weaved in order to get there.
This is a shame because much of what is in the film is pretty good: Downey Jnr still makes an arrogant billionaire genius to be likeable; Paltrow suits her role nicely; and in key supporting roles Rourke and Rockwell are good value.
Plus, some elements seem to have been literally cut out: one notable moment from the trailer is absent from the film, although why this is the case when it lasts about 20 seconds is hard to fathom.
For the next film, I hope that the film-makers strip away the S.H.I.E.L.D. elements and focus on the basic stuff that works.
It is worth remembering that there is value in not pandering to the masses. Did Orson Welles obsess over what audiences wanted when he made Citizen Kane? Did Francis Ford Coppola unveil work-in-progress footage to screaming geeks when he made The Godfather?
In the case of a huge franchise like Star Wars, it was depressing to note the drop in quality when George Lucas started pandering to what he though fans wanted in the prequels. Instead of Han Solo we got Jar-Jar Binks.
“If I’d asked my customers what they wanted, they’d have said a faster horse.”
In the case of blockbusters I’d humbly suggest studios and directors trust their own vision rather than trying to cram in elements that play well at comic book conventions.
This is still going to be a massive film at the box office but if it focused on its core elements, it could have been a better one.
The Ghost is a skilful political thriller examining the aftermath of the War on Terror which reflects the life and career of its director Roman Polanski.
Adapted by Robert Harris from his own novel, the story sees a journalist (Ewan McGregor) agree to ghost write the memoirs of a former British Prime Minister, Adam Lang (Pierce Brosnan), who bears a striking similarity to Tony Blair.
When the writer sets to work at the PM’s residence in Martha’s Vineyard, he finds out that his predecessor has mysteriously drowned and some other unnerving things.
Lang could be guilty of war crimes, specifically colluding with the US on torturing terrorist suspects, and after talking to his wife Ruth (Olivia Williams) and assistant Amelia (Kim Cattrall) he uncovers murky inconsistencies about the political leader’s background.
The first and most obvious aspect of The Ghost is the quality of the film making. Although it isn’t up there with his best work (Repulsion, Rosemary’s Baby, Chinatown and The Pianist) it is a highly absorbing and technically proficient thriller.
Its stately pace and considered approach are so old fashioned as to be positively revolutionary in these times, but it is a reminder that a veteran European director can still make a relevant and accessible film about contemporary issues.
I still have grave reservations about Ewan McGregor’s ability to do an accent but his overall performance is perhaps the best work he has done in quite some time.
Brosnan has much less screen time than I expected, but the easy charm, intelligence and thinly-veiled vanity he brings to the role is spot on. It might just be his best ever performance.
The real revelatory turn though is from Olivia Williams, who reminds us that this isn’t just a satire on the Blairs. Far from being a Cherie Blair clone, she is pitch perfect in an intriguing role, filling it with subtlety and nuance.
Given that the vast bulk of the film takes place at a house in America, the production design is first rate. The interiors were shot at studios in Berlin, with the island of Sylt in Nothern Germany ably doubling for a rainy Martha’s Vineyard.
Despite the technical expertise, including some nice widescreen cinematography from Pawel Edelman (who shot Polanski’s Oliver Twist and The Pianist), there is a distracting score by Alexandre Desplat, which – for the first half of the film at least – is filled with jaunty, vaguely comic rhythms and melodies that somewhat dilutes the sense of menace.
Some may expect this to be a broad satire on Blair’s enthusiasm for US foreign policy under the Bush Administration, but to the film’s credit it is more nuanced than that.
Indeed, the politics are not as cut and dried as they might initially seem. Although the climactic twist is something of a let down, there is a mournful tone to the film which captures both the disillusion with Blair and impotence citizens feel in the face of political leaders waging wars with no foreseeable end.
For some reason this film is called The Ghost in the UK and The Ghost Writer in other territories (although the print I saw it on said the latter), but the discrepancy is an interesting one as the title proves to be more than just a marketing after thought.
In a literal sense it describes the journalist (who is never named) but it could also refer to Lang, who is literally in a political afterlife and whose past actions continue to linger. But in an ironic twist – that no-one could have foreseen when it went into production – the real ghost of this film is Polanski himself.
Although it can be contentious to judge any work through a biographical lens, this film is a notable example of life and art colliding in an extraordinary way.
Although the controversy about that is yet to be resolved, all the way through The Ghost Writer I couldn’t shake the parallels between his life and what was on screen.
Like Lang, Polanski is forced into exile in a foreign country with the threat of prosecution; he has a murky past coming back to haunt him and he is also charming, skilled and flawed.
In the novel one could get the idea that the ghost writer is a version of Robert Harris, an initial supporter of Blair and a close friend of New Labour architect Peter Mandelson, who became disillusioned by the Iraq War.
But with the film adaptation, it struck me that the audience is invited to put themselves in the ghost writer’s shoes (there is probably a reason he is unnamed). Considering the parallels between Lang and Blair, the film actually becomes a fascinating insight into the career and life of Polanski.
In the the fascinating 2008 documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, the LA prosecutor Roger Gunson commented on the recurring themes of the directorâs work:
âEvery Roman Polanski movie has the theme [of] corruption meeting innocence over waterâ
The infamous events of March 1977 could be interpreted in these terms: Polanski (corruption) met Samantha Geimer (innocence) over water (Jack Nicholsonâs jacuzzi).
With The Ghost we again have corruption (political crimes and CIA intrigue), meeting innocence (a journalist discovering dark things) over water (drowning writers, political torture involving waterboarding).
Although ghosts are impossible in the literal sense, it is spooky the way Polanski’s life and career haunts what could be his last ever film.
A comic-book adaptation with a difference, Kick-Ass gleefully subverts and pays homage to the super-hero genre.
The plot transfers Mark Millar’s comic to the screen which involves a geeky teenager (Aaron Johnson) who decides to become a superhero named Kick-Ass, which brings him in to contact with a mob boss (Mark Strong) and his son (Christopher Mintz-Plasse); and a crime-fighting father (Nicholas Cage) and daughter (Chloe Moretz) who have revenge in mind.
After a decade of superhero movies – and more sequels and reboots to come – this is something of a cheeky teenager of a film: foul-mouthed, sly, violent and yet strangely innocent.
Embracing the superhero mythos, it also simultaneously debunks it: ‘Kick-Ass’ himself has no powers and is simply a teenager in a funny costume, whilst the other characters who suit up are mostly played for blackly comic laughs.
Crammed to bursting with references to superhero films (I lost count of the visual nods towards the Spiderman, Superman and Batman films) it is aggressively aimed at comic book fans and those who take Comic Con a bit too seriously.
This isn’t an entirely bad thing as it has a punchier attitude than most of the superhero adaptations made by the major studios and also spoofs the insatiable online consumption of comic book material.
Although when it opened a couple of weeks ago there was an expectation by some that it would be ‘controversial’, I don’t think the comedy violence or the fact that a young girl swears really bothered anyone who actually saw the film.
A key scene is a fight sequence when Kick-Ass takes on some thugs outside a diner and a nearby teenager screams to a friend that it is ‘awesome’. It almost embodies the film and its fans in microcosm.
Despite having some notable qualities, the film does have its drawbacks: it isn’t quite as subversive or clever as its fans might claim (Mystery Men covered similar territory back in the late 90s) and Matthew Vaughn still has limitations as a director when it comes to shooting and plotting a film.
That said, there are aspects that intrigued me.
If you look at the credits you’ll see that there are no less than four credited composers (John Murphy, Henry Jackman, Marius de Vries and Ilan Eshkeri) and what sounds like a lot of temp music which Vaughn got so attached to that he left in rather than use a freshly composed score. (Look out for sequences featuring what sounds like Murphy’s music for 28 Days Later and Sunshine)
The other issue that leapt out was why the major studios turned this film down as it seems certain to nail the lucrative fanboy demographic they usually crave.
Obviously there would have been concerns about some of the swearing, violence and general air of political incorrectness.
But given that major studios have released fairly extreme fare for mainstream audiences like Hannibal (brains being eaten), Bruno (extreme sexual content) and Bad Boys 2 (insane violence), I’m surprised when they get all prudish.
Perhaps the larger question that crossed their minds was whether it would breakthrough to a mainstream audience.
This meant that Vaughn had to raise the budget independently outside the studio system before selling the distribution rights to various studios such as Universal in the UK and Lionsgate in the US.
Quite how he and his producers managed to raise the reported $28m budget (which is very high for an independent production) is another interesting question but in the long run I can’t see this losing money.
When it opened in the UK a couple of weeks ago, it was overshadowed by Clash of the Titans and How To Train Your Dragon but has since earned a highly respectable ÂŁ7m.
But how will it fare when it opens in the US this weekend?
On the plus side Lionsgate have a solid track record in marketing edgy fare like the Saw films to the masses.
On the downside, it is tricky to get mainstream awareness for a film like this, essentially a post-modern superhero comedy, and I suspect that some audiences outside New York and LA will find the swearing and comedy violence a little off putting.
Add some reportedly less-than-stellar tracking numbers and perhaps there is cause for concern at Kick-Ass HQ. But although it plays like an expensive cult film, in the long run I can see it having a long shelf life on DVD and TV.
Kick-Ass is tailor-made for geeky-fanboys, but then there are a lot of those about.
Combining technical brilliance with a specific historical narrative makes Green Zone an absorbing political thriller, even if its modification of history is problematic.
As the search proves unproductive he begins to suspect something is wrong with the intelligence that was used to justify the invasion.
People Miller comes across in his search for the truth involve: the newly arrived US Administrator of Iraq (Greg Kinnear); a CIA agent (Brendan Gleeson); a Wall Street Journal reporter (Amy Ryan); a local Iraqi (Khalid Abdalla); and a special forces Major (Jason Isaacs).
Director Paul Greengrass began his career in current affairs television and since breaking through into the mainstream with Bloody Sunday (2002) and The Bourne Supremacy (2004), has managed to combine political awareness with realistic excitement in such films as United 93 (2006) and The Bourne Ultimatum (2007).
His Bourne films were first rate, adrenaline fuelled entertainment whose box office success afforded him the opportunity to make an intense, sombre film about 9/11 at a major studio. When this project was announced it looked like he was exploring similar territory.
Originally based on based on Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s book “Imperial Life in the Emerald City“, which depicted the clueless arrogance of US occupation under viceroy Paul Bremer, it is now credited as being inspired by it.
The Green Zone of the title comes from the area in Baghdad where the US forces and administrators lived in a secure bubble of imperial delusion, which was observed and documented by Chandrasekaran in his book.
Although there are scenes and characters that modify and pay homage to the book (most notably a meeting by a swimming pool), it appears that screenwriter Brian Helgeland and Greengrass have grafted on the thriller elements to make it more palatable for mainstream audiences.
I suspect that when the film started shooting in 2008, Universal and Working Title (the producers of the film) got nervous at the sight of War on Terror themed films such as In the Valley of Elah, Redacted and Lions for Lambs bombing at the box office.
It could have always been the director’s intention to fuse the Bourne action aesthetic with the political insights of his historical films, but given how it has been essentially been marketed as ‘The Bourne Zone’ (i.e. Matt Damon on the poster, plenty of action in the trailer) you could be forgiven for thinking that the studio was keen to play down the Iraq stuff.
Which is a little bit of a problem in that the film is set in Iraq and explicitly about the faulty intelligence that underpinned the invasion, along with the illusions which made turned the subsequent occupation into a chaotic bloodbath.
What rescues the film is the technical excellence which has long been a hallmark of Greengrass’ productions.
Possibly the most talented mainstream director at creating believable action sequences, he films the hunt for WMDs and Iraqi officials with remarkable authenticity.
Different parts of Baghdad are brilliantly recreated in locations as diverse as Morocco, Spain and the UK. The fact that the Freemasons Hall in London is even used for the CPA’s headquarters is testament to the work of production designer Dominic Watkins.
The shaky camera work which has been a hallmark of Greengrass’ previous films, is also present but although it’s been influential on other Hollywood films (sometimes to the point of parody) it gives the film a visceral, urgent feel.
Cinematographer Barry Ackroyd shoots proceedings with his customary expertise and skill and the visuals are augmented with some superb CGI work which allows panoramic shots of Baghdad that are integrated seamlessly with real helicopters and buildings.
Christopher Rouse‘s editing helps the narrative move briskly along and as a thriller it is undeniably absorbing. So, what exactly is the problem with this technically brilliant political thriller?
The issue is certainly not anything to do with the thriller aspects of the film but the political elements, and in particualr the history it is based on.
I certainly don’t dispute the general thrust of the story, which paints the trumped up intelligence and mendacity of the Bush administration in a less than flattering light. Where the film hits problems is in it’s avoidance of conflating the real with the imagined.
To avoid the legal headaches the producers have the usual disclaimer about characters being fictional but it is palpable that key plotlines are based on real life examples: the journalist ‘Lawrie Dayne’ (Amy Ryan) is inspired by New York Times reporter Judith Miller, the infamous mouthpiece for WMD stories; ‘Clark Poundstone’ (Greg Kinnear) is a thinly veiled portrayal of Paul Bremer, the Coalition Provisional Authority head who personified the wrong headed approach to the war; and there is also a character who looks suspiciously like Ahmed Chalabi, the exiled Iraqi beloved of the neo-conservatives who pushed for war.
Whilst it is understandable that a mainstream studio would want to dodge the threat of legal action, it inevitably undermines claims to the ‘truth’.
Are there audiences that will think that the Wall Street Journal did a worse job than the New York Times in reporting the WMD issue?
How seriously can we take the film’s historical claims if names and details have been altered?
I’m sure Greengrass and Helgeland will argue that dramatic licence is taken in any endeavour such as this, but something does not sit right if a major Hollywood film is taking a newspaper to task for not reporting the truth, and doing so by deliberately changing historical facts.
There is no doubt that the basic premise of the film is correct, sourced from numerous books and documentaries documenting the disastrous nature of the invasion and occupation. But the details with which it presents that premise is shaky.
That is not to say that Green Zone isn’t an expertly crafted and entertaining thriller, but as a political drama it doesn’t reach the heights of United 93, one of the landmark films of the last decade.
It will be interesting to see how audiences respond to the film. Universal made a calculated decision to postpone the release from the Autumn until the spring, to avoid a costly Oscar campaign and take advantage of a quieter time at the box office.
That could turn out to be a shrewd move because earlier this week The Hurt Locker won big at the Oscars and this may be the time for a mainstream film about the Iraq misadventure to finally cross over at the box office.
Tonight could see the Iraq war drama The Hurt Locker win the Oscar for Best Picture, but even if it goes to Avatar, the real winner is a film which has gradually found widespread acclaim and recognition.
After it first premiered at the Venice film festival back in September 2008, the idea that it would have ended up as a heavyweight Oscar contender in 2010 would have seemed highly unlikely.
The climate for Iraq themed films back then was not a good one. Films such as Redacted, In the Valley of Elah and Body of Lies had underperformed at the box office.
An independently-financed drama about a bomb squad in Baghdad during 2004 might have seemed to many observers as one that would struggle to find an audience. The fact that several studios had turned down the script suggested what they thought of its potential.
Summit made the decision to release it the following summer – effectively taking it out of the 2008-09 Oscar race which was dominated by Slumdog Millionaire – and to some this looked like they were effectively dumping the film.
After all, when you actually see it, this isn’t some hand-wringing polemic about US troops in the Middle East, but a visceral drama which takes you inside the tension of what certain troops have to go through.
Seeing last summer I felt strongly that it had genuine mainstream potential and was disappointed that Summit went for an unusual platform release.
After opening in major cities like New York and LA, where it achieved terrific per-screen grosses, the studio went for a curious ‘rolling’ distribution where it went around the country gradually.
Perhaps as a smaller outfit, without the marketing dollars of a major like Warner Bros or Paramount, they felt this was a way of building on the huge critical acclaim and igniting word of mouth.
Unfortunately, it didn’t work (in the short term at least) and a talking point amongst film sites last summer was why something as good as The Hurt Locker could perform so badly whilst something as bad as Transformers 2 could be such a hit.
At this point, it also seemed odd that Summit’s release strategy wasn’t more attuned to delaying  it closer for the awards season.
Most of the films contending for the Oscars open in the final three months of the year, before the late December deadline, so that they are fresh in voters minds although there have been exceptions like The Silence of the Lambs (1991) and Gladiator (2000).
At the time, it seemed like a genuinely important film was going to be painted as an acclaimed box office failure.
But in the autumn something remarkable happened. The Hurt Locker started to pick up a slew of critics and guild awards and when the Academy announced that it was expanding the Best Picture slots to 10 films it seemed a given that it would find a place.
What surprised me was how it slowly began to become the front runner as early contenders like Up in the Air began to fizzle slightly.
By the time Avatar arrived at Christmas and quickly smashed box office records, it quickly established itself as the rival for Best Picture whilst Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart) and Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side) became the frontrunners in the acting categories.
The battle tonight between Kathryn Bigelow’s war drama and James Cameron’s sci-fi epic is interesting.
One is gritty, contemporary and earned just over $21 million dollars worldwide; the other is a futuristic fantasy that has grossed over $2.5 billion worldwide to become the most successful film of all time.
Despite their differences, thematically they both speak in different ways to the present conflicts in the world. Intriguingly, Cameron and Bigelow – who were once married – remain friends and even solicited opinions from each other on their respective films.
Personally, I think The Hurt Locker will win Best Picture tonight as it has the momentum of winning so many awards this season (the Golden Globes can be discounted as the votes of 90 celebrity-obsessed journalists based in LA).
Strangely, Summit’s release strategy – criticised by some – will ultimately be vindicated if it wins one of the major categories tonight.
Even if Avatar scoops Best Picture, it is The Hurt Locker which has benefited most from this awards season.
As a film that finally found wider acknowledgement in the awards season, it is a potent sign of how the Oscars can remind Hollywood and audiences around the world that quality still matters.
Alice (Mia Wasikowska) is older than usual and the story follows her as she ventures into the fantastical Underland (or ‘Wonderland’ as some inhabitants call it).
Many children around the world have grown up with this story and the characters are fairly iconic to people of a certain age, so it was a no-brainer to make a live action feature film, especially given the success of Burton’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005).
But Burton has made a deeply average film which only contains fleeting glimpses of magic and too much that is pedestrian and uninspired.
Major problems begin with the casting of Alice, who is played by an actress who seems like she has just fallen out of bed rather than down a rabbit hole.
Newcomer Wasikowska just doesn’t have the spirit the role demands, especially given all the mind-bending experiences the protagonist goes through.
The idea of making her older doesn’t add anything substantial and her journey towards an armoured warrior towards the climax is unconvincing.
The production design and visual look of the film – one of Burton’s big selling points as a director – is also badly handled, much too reliant on green-screen trickery, to the point where it all blurs into an ugly CGI mess with little craft or imagination.
This is no more apparent than in the famous supporting characters.
The likes of the Cheshire Cat, Tweedledum and Tweedledee and the White Rabbit are wonderfully visual on the page, but on screen there are wafer-thin digital creations lacking charm and generally passing by without any consequence.
The two exceptions are Depp and Bonham-Carter, who do bring some zest to their roles, with the former tapping into the surreal charm of his character whilst the latter conveys the aristocratic impatience of hers with nice comic timing.
But this is little relief in a film which is a chore to sit through.
To make matters worse, the 3D has not been thought through properly and as the first major studio film to be released in the format after Avatar, this could prove to be a big let down.
I suspect, though could be wrong, that it wasn’t designed as a 3D film from the beginning, but when the 3D bandwagon gathered steam last year, someone decided to tick a box in the hope of boosting the box office.
When you think of the events in the story – falling down holes, characters growing in size etc – it is a massive missed opportunity, whether 3D was originally planned or not.
In fact, the film itself is one big missed opportunity that fails to translate the material effectively and a sign of a director who seems to have lost his way.
You may notice that the poster you saw in your local cinema (on the above left) is notably different from the cover of the disc you will buy or rent (on the above right).
The cinema poster – designed by BLT Associates – is fairly conceptual. It depicts the three main characters of the film (Clooney in the middle, flanked by Anna Kendrick on the left and Vera Farmiga on the right) but they are distant, in silhouette and made to look small by the airport glass and plane outside.
The Helvetica font and colour scheme (cool blues, mixed with whites and blacks) are very reminiscent of an airport and the overall effect is neat as it captures both the bittersweet mood and basic themes of the film.
Reitman recently said that he got the basic idea for the poster by taking a similar photo whilst filming on location at an airport but that some folks at Paramount marketing (the studio that funded the film) were keen on getting a little more of Clooney in the image.
After all, if you have paid a considerable amount for a star, you want to get your money’s worth even if he’s working at a reduced rate on a prestige, Oscar-candidate project like this.
But now the DVD and Blu-ray has come out in the US (that would be on the above right), you can see the difference.
Althought they have inverted the colour scheme of the theatrical poster, the main image features a much more prominent Clooney (laughing) alongside Vera Farmiga, with them both laughing at a bar.
The combined effect emphasises the comedy/feel-good aspect of the film alongside the romance and downplays the more serious themes of recession, job firings and isolation that crop up eslewhere in the story.
Personally, I think it looks horrible and doesn’t do justice to the quality of the film, but – even for a home entertainment release – it also looks pretty ropey, as if an intern was asked to do it on Photoshop on his lunch break.
So, what to make of all this?
Firstly, movie posters come out of a tradition where they are seen at cinemas, bus stops and various outdoor displays which mean they have to be larger in size. In comparison, DVD and Blu-rays are smaller so they have less space to grab your attention, often resulting in a face shot of the actors.
Secondly, one of the time honoured traditions in Hollywood is for everyone to blame the marketing if a film doesn’t do well at the box office. Although Up in the Air was by no means a flop – especially given its relatively lean budget – maybe Paramount felt they could dupe new audiences into thinking it is some kind of romantic comedy.
Thirdly, given that the (literal) shelf life of a film is longer in the shop than it is at cinemas, you would think that more time and effort would be spent on getting it right, rather than just reacting to what happened on the theatrical release.
Finally, it seems that the UK DVD & Blu-ray release of Up in the Air has exactly the same design as the theatrical poster, which could mean that: a) We have better taste over here b) Paramount UK couldn’t be bothered to change it or c) None of the above applies.
The latest big screen adaptation of the famous London detective is a mixed bag that tries to reinterpret the character as a Victorian-era James Bond.
When the news broke that Guy Ritchie was directing a new big budget film based on Arthur Conan Doyle‘s character, alarm bells began to ring. He broke through in the late 90s as a director of passable cockney gangster films such as Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998) and Snatch (2000).
But he then he went on to direct two of the most embarrassing disasters of the decade: Swept Away (2002) was a laughable remake of an Italian film with his famous wife in the lead role, whilst Revolver (2005) was an impenetrable gangster drama which involved Jason Statham arguing with himself in a lift and Ray Liotta shouting in his underpants.
After teaming up with producer Joel Silver for the average but not disastrous RockNRolla (2008), he was entrusted with bringing Holmes to the big screen after some eagle-eyed person had spotted the copyright on the famous character was due to expire.
Instead Ritchie has opted for a less clean cut figure, who even indulges in bare knuckle boxing although they have preserved his penetrating intelligence and wit.
It plays a little like Holmes rewritten by Dan Brown (The Da Vinci Holmes anyone?) but the screenplay by Michael Robert Johnson, Anthony Peckham and Simon Kinberg doesn’t deviate as much from the stories as fans might have feared.
On the plus side, Downey and Law are actually well cast in the leading roles and have a nice chemistry together, even if a little too much innuendo is implied with regards to their relationship.
The film largely rests on Downey who manages to convince and engage as an intelligent action man with a passable British accent, even though his pronunciation at times is a little curious.
Strong makes for a reasonable, if one dimensional villain, although McAdams is badly miscast and Kelly Reilly (as Watson’s love interest) is also given a wafer-thin role that does little justice to her talent as an actress.
Victorian London is recreated with a clever mix of set design and CGI, although there are sequences (especially the climax on Tower Bridge) where it doesn’t fully work and comes across like an overblown computer game.
Another downside is that Ritchie can’t help himself when it comes to his trademark ‘slowing-down and then speeded up’ editing style. This is employed whenever key plot or character points are explained and soon becomes irritating.
The script also has the feel of being re-written several times in order to spell out key plot points.
This doesn’t hide some glaring inconsistencies (including one death sequence that is ludicrous in retrospect) but given that Holmes’ favoured method (imitated by many fictional detectives since such as Poirot and Columbo) is to explain how he solved problems, it probably won’t jar audiences too much.
To be fair, Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes isn’t quite as bad as one might have feared, which isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement but indicates that there is a possible franchise ahead for Downey as the pipe smoking detective.
The long awaited blockbuster from director James Cameron is a remarkable visual achievement and a thrilling sci-fi drama.
Anticipation over what Avatar would be has reached fever pitch in recent months as speculation mounted: Would the 3D change the way audiences see cinema? Why did it cost so much? What’s with all the blue aliens? And why is it called Avatar?
The less than ecstatic reaction in various quarters to the trailers and preview footage in the summer, combined with some sluggish tracking numbers, were probably enough to make folks at 20th Century Fox a little nervous.
But the simple fact is that Avatar really delivers. For the 163 minute running time it takes you on an adventure and into a different world with all manner of thrilling sights and sounds.
Set in the year 2154, the story and centres on a wheelchair bound US marine named Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), sent on a mission to the planet of Pandora, replacing his recently deceased twin brother.
It has been partly colonised by humans who are trying to mine it for rare minerals because Earth is on the bring of ecological collapse.
Sully’s mission is to mix with Pandora’s native aliens the Na’vi by becoming an Avatar, a hybrid alien which he ‘becomes’ under lab conditions, as if in a dream.
Aided by the chief scientist (Sigourney Weaver) in charge of the project, he finds a way of blending in with the natives after the hawkish military commander (Stephen Lang) recruits him to be a spy.
But he soon comes to fall in love with the planet and its people after being rescued by Na’vi warrior Neytiri (Zoe Saldana) and finding himself at home on amongst their culture.
This causes inevitable tensions with the human colony’s desire to exploit their land.
The most immediate thing about experiencing the film is how quickly you settle into the world of Pandora.
Forget all the Gawker-led hipster jibes about the Na’vi looking like smurfs – once you are  inside the cinema they look and feel like real characters, which is a major tribute to the CGI artists and actors who brought them to life.
But it is the stunning vistas and trippy details of Pandora that will really wow audiences.
In utilising new advances in technology, Avatar goes in further in pushing the envelope: alien landscapes, major characters and various creatures are rendered with astounding detail and richness.
If you stay and watch the end credits you’ll see an unbelievable amount of visual effects artists and several different houses, although the primary credit goes to the WETA Digital team led by Joe Letteri.
At times it is so good that that you begin to take it for granted, which in a strange way almost makes it a victim of its own brilliance.
Another important aspect of Avatar is that it was filmed with the proprietary Fusion digital 3-D camera system (developed by Cameron and Vince Pace) which are stereoscopic cameras that ‘simulate’ human sight.
I saw it in 3D and was struck at how seamless it was. There was no obvious pointy images, but a visual design that draws you subconsciously into the screen. It will also work in 2D but I think 3D will prove the richer experience.
There’s been a lot of talk about this film being a game changer for 3D in mainstream cinema. I’m not sure every film at a multiplex should (or needs to) be shown like that, but for tentpole movies Avatar is a big leap forward.
Certainly it could influence writers, directors and producers to be more imaginative in how they approach the visual design of a blockbuster.
But what of the themes and subtext? For such a high profile film from a major Hollywood studio, it is a fairly stinging critique of US militarism and imperialism, firmly on the side of the indigenous insurgency with a pro-environmental message to boot – at one point a tree is literally hugged and spoke to!
The sight of futuristic US helicopters landing on jungles and firing incendiary bombs on the native Na’vi echoes Vietnam and the arc of the story carries more than a whiff of Dances With Wolves or even The New World.
There is also a certain irony that it was mostly funded by Rupert Murdoch‘s News Corp and makes you wonder if the Aussie media mogul got the memo about hundreds of millions of his dollars being spent on a film with such a liberal message.
It could certainly be interpreted as a big, middle-fingered salute to the Bush-Cheney era – a critique of US imperialism that embraces empathy with other races and respect for the environment.
The irony of course is that this is likely to wash right over the heads of Fox News junkies and Sarah Palin fans.
It isn’t exactly subtle, but props must go to Cameron for being so on the nose with the issues.
Just weeks after more US troops were sent to Afghanistan and the week global leaders meet in Copenhagen to discuss the environment, it could hardly be more topical – impressive for a sci-film set in the middle of the next century.
There are some minus points: the script contains some clunky dialogue; some sequences appear trimmed to keep the running time down; the originality of the visuals isn’t matched by the story; Leona Lewis singing over the end credits and at times the villains and their motives are a little one-dimensional.
I’d be wary of talking about Avatar as another Titanic. For various reasons it will be hard to ever crack the runaway box office success of that film and I don’t feel it will sweep the Oscar race this year (although the technical and visual effects awards are in the bag).
But if word of mouth catches fire, there could certainly be a slow-burn must-see effect – like with Titanic – that turns it into the kind of film people have to see in order to talk about it.
From The Terminator through to Titanic, James Cameron has always been a great technical director, even if his films have had their downsides.
By pushing relentlessly at how films look on screen he has helped raised standards of how we view movies and for that he deserves great credit.
Avatar demonstrates again that he understands one of the basic truths about cinema, which is its ability to lift audiences out of themselves for a couple of hours and make them feel giddy in the process.
For those unfamiliar with the source material, it is the story of a wild young boy named Max who is sent to his bedroom without his supper. His room grows into a forest and he sails off to a magical land where (as the title suggests) ‘the wild things are’.
Part of the charm and beauty of the book is how short and sweet it is, which inevitably presented any filmmaker a big challenge. How would you expand it to feature length and preserve its qualities?
There was plenty of speculation during the filming as to how Jonze was going to portray the creatures and rumours abounded that the director was at creative loggerheads with the studio brass.
The fact that the bulk of the shoot occurred in 2006, followed by extensive visual effects work last year in London, suggests that this was not the smoothest of productions.
But sitting down to watch the film, none of that mattered and Jonze and his team have come up with a bold and expansive treatment of the book, which not only captures Sendak’s emotional tone but even takes it to another place.
The opening scene sets things up perfectly with a hand-held camera capturing a burst of Max (played by newcomer Max Records) being wild inside his home before the real action begins.
This extended prologue might give fans of the book pause for thought – we actually see his mother (Catherine Keener) and family – but in the context of the expanded narrative it doesn’t jar.
But it is with the wild things that the film really comes alive. It would have been an option to completely render them with CGI but the decision to use actors inside suits with visual effects replacing their faces was inspired.
Casting is also key to why the movie works: Records is not a typical child actor, with a raw quality that fits just right whilst the voice cast is every bit as good.
The casting of James Gandolfini as Carol (the wild thing Max becomes closest to) brilliantly plays off his Sopranos persona, highlighting his joy, vulnerability and anger.
Chris Cooper, Lauren Ambrose and Paul Dano also chip in with excellent vocal performances, making their characters as varied and complex as they should be.
The Australian locations, beautifully captured by cinematographer Lance Acord, also add a visual richness to the film which wouldn’t have been the same if done on green screen soundstages.
Some adults may complain that Jonze has made a children’s film that slants towards to older audiences, but this is exactly what makes the film special.
Instead of sugar coating the story and patronising the viewer, he has (along with co-screenwriter Dave Eggers) treated the source material and cinema audience with the respect they deserve.
There is something other worldly and anarchic about this film project and in some ways I’m staggered it actually got made like this.
However, its mix of humour, heart and imagination could make it as beloved as the book, for audiences today and many years to come.
Last week I was at the Student Radio Awards in London and the evening was a reminder of radio things past and present.
If you have listened UK radio stations like Talk Radio, TalkSPORT and Radio 2 over the last few years you may have heard me talk about films on certain shows at different times.
But my first proper experience behind the microphone was at the student radio station Insanity back in February 1998 presenting an afternoon show on a Saturday and doing roving reporting via a mobile on Matt Deegan’s weekend breakfast show.
Back then it was a case of selecting CDs and learning how to work the faders after a bit of ‘training’ (i.e. a 10 minute session in which I realised how confusing a Denon Mini-Disc player was) and then basically doing a two hour show.
I have to be honest and admit that I did it because it it seemed like fun and I’d listened to a lot of radio in my first year as I didn’t have a TV.
Anyway, in early 1999 I managed to get some work experience on the Ian Collins show on Talk Radio and was lucky enough to get a shift reviewing films every week, which lasted in various forms on various shows until last year.
But there is no doubt that doing student radio and facing the regular task of filling the airwaves with speech or music helped me enormously when I went into a professional environment.
One of the many nice things about the awards evening was seeing various people who’ve helped me in my radio journey:
Steve Harris of XFM was the producer who replied to my faxed requested for work experience at Talk Radio back in 1999
Mike Hanson of BBC 6 Music was the producer of the Ian Collins show, which was regular night time listening during those student years
Marsha Shandur of XFM, who I once saw give one of the best ‘how to get into radio’ speeches ever
Matt Deegan of Folder Media (and former Insanity presenter and station manager) who I still work with on various things to this day.
But the real kick this year was being a judge in the Interview category.
Not only was it interesting to check out what different people had done but it was a real pleasure to see my first choice actually win.
It was an interview by Joshua Chambers of URY and featured him questioning Hilary Benn back in February about the government’s position on the use of torture in the wake of the Binyam Mohamed case.
Interestingly, the audio quality isn’t that great but if you read his written submission you’ll see an explanation that actually strengthens his entry.
I can honestly say it is one of the best audio interviews I’ve heard in a very long time, as the questions were well researched and highlighted the inconsistencies in the Government line Benn was trying to defend.
Congratulations to all the entrants, winners and organisers at the SRA for putting on the evening.
The whole event was a reminder to me about student radio – its value is not monetary, but lies in the fact that people can achieve a lot when others take the time out to help them.
The ultra low budget horror sensation Paranormal Activity is sporadically effective but seems destined to join The Blair Witch Project as a flash in the pan phenomenon.
The premise is simple: a well to do couple (played by Katie Featherston and Micah Sloat) think they are being haunted by a ghost at night, so they record themselves on video camera and become increasingly unnerved by the resulting footage.
But perhaps even more striking is its similarity to another low budget sensation, The Blair Witch Project.
Both were filmed with low end cameras in the style of ‘found footage’.
The central conceit is what you are watching really happened as it’s shot through the cameras the characters use.
Unlike the spooky woods haunted by the Blair Witch, the action here is consigned to a spacious surburban house and much of it unfolds at night in the bedroom.
These sequences are the strongest with heavy doses of tension cranked up by some judicious editing and inventive use of the camera’s clock.
But ultimately the film is a something of a stretched out gimmick.
On the print I saw it on, the UK distributors Icon didn’t even alter the reference to the US distributors (Paramount Pictures) which seemed a little clumsy (or was it intentional?).
That said, it has clearly struck a chord with US audiences and will probably do well here from all the buzz and word of mouth.
I went to a late night preview at my local cinema a couple of weeks ago and although the audience was small, there were moments when people near me jolted out of their seat.
When it arrives on DVD I’m sure it will become a late night horror favourite, although like The Blair Witch Project it will be remembered more for how it was filmed and marketed, than for the actual quality of the work itself.
For the uninitiated the Twilight films are based on the mega-selling novels by Stephenie Meyer which have been translated into over 20 languages worldwide.
There are currently four books: Twilight (2005), New Moon (2006), Eclipse (2007) and Breaking Dawn (2008) and they have a combined sale of over 25 million copies.
When someone at MTV films made the (now catastrophic) decision to pass on making the film adaptations, newcomer Summit Entertainment stepped up and a lucrative film franchise was born.
It grossed over $383 million worldwide, making instant stars of Pattinson and Stewart and also causing wild scenes of fandom at various premieres around the world.
I got a sneak peak of New Moon yesterday at a press screening in London and the audience mostly consisted of media folk (like me), teenage girls and their parents.
The story involves Edward having to go away, Bella discovering new things about her friend Jacob (Taylor Lautner) and a mysterious vampire from the past named Aro (Michael Sheen).
Bearing in mind that I am way out of the target demographic for this material, here are my main thoughts:
It is slightly more expansive in terms of the locations (the action even shifts to Italy at one point)
Technically, it is an improvement on the original as the supernatural action is more convincingly done.
The narrative drags here and there but mostly moves along in a brisk and accessible fashion.
Fans of Edward may be a little disappointed that he isn’t in the story for long stretches.
Anna Kendrick is funny – she should be given a larger role next time.
For people unfamiliar with the books, brush up on Wikipedia or some things are going to leave you a little confused.
As a middle story (like The Empire Strikes Back) it leaves a few threads to be tantalisingly picked up on in the next film.
The last line of the film is clever as it pushes all the buttons of the audience …all at once.
My basic take is that this is essentially another reasonably well made fantasy film – a franchise like Star Wars or Harry Potter but moulded especially for teenage girls.
But despite the lack of genuine magic, there is no doubt that it will dominate the box office this month and make those publishers and executives who originally turned it down continue to tear their hair out.
The latest CGI disaster-porn blockbuster from director Roland Emmerich is an insane roller coaster ride in the mould of his previous films.
When Sony Pictures hired Emmerich to make 2012 they clearly weren’t doing so in the hope that he would make an intimate examination of how governments respond to a global crisis.
Armed with a huge budget he has constructed an overblown cocktail of his greatest hits: Independence Day (in which the world is devastated by aliens); Godzilla (in which a city is devastated by a lizard); Â The Day After Tomorrow (in which the world is devastated by global warming).
The story has a similar template: alarmed scientists (Chiwetel Ojiofor and Jimi Mistry) discover the disaster; an everyday guy (John Cusack) struggles to protect his family amidst the chaos; the US president (Danny Glover) tries to be stoic; the chief of staff (Oliver Platt) enacts a secret plan and various other characters all respond differently to the coming apocalypse.
In essence, this is a modern day remake of 1970s disaster movies like Earthquake with advanced CGI and production values. It is very cheesy and workmanlike, although the sheer scale of destruction was beguilingly impressive.
Going in I had a fair idea of what to expect (clichĂŠs, perfunctory performances, clunky dialogue, overblown set pieces, absurd scenes where characters cheer and clap in unison) and it all came true, but a few things stuck out.
Firstly, it is very long for a mainstream film at 158 minutes but actually passes quite quickly, mainly because the action sequences come thick and fast and have a bizarre, rapid absurdity to them.
Secondly, the CGI is impressive on one level in its reconstruction of a global apocalypse but the use of it is often flawed as the tension is frequently undercut by the ludicrous just-in-time escapes, worthy of Indiana Jones at his luckiest.
Thirdly, the product placement is so ubiquitous it becomes vaguely humorous. There are lots of Sony Vaio laptops. There are lots of Sony TVs. Everyone uses a Sony phone.
The only thing missing were PS3s but it’s handy to know if the world ends, Sony have got the consumer electrical goods sorted.
The fact that the three most noteworthy aspects of the film are the length, the visual effects and branded electrical products tells you a great deal.
The acting? Well, it’s pay cheque performances all around with everyone trying to make the clunky dialogue sound OK.
Cusack and Ejiofor have been shrewdly cast though, as they are likeable actors who lend the production a sheen of credibility it doesn’t really have.
But seeing the likes of George Segal, Danny Glover and Thomas McCarthy in wafer thin roles is alarming. Is this really the best major studios can offer talent like this?
Despite the critical mauling this film will undoubtedly take (deservedly for the most part), the gnashing of teeth over it is not just about the film. It is partly because this is film is going to make a lot of money.
As I came out of it, the reasons for its impending success became clearer:
The concept is simple to understand around the globe (“The world ends in 2012. Or does it…?”).
Disaster movies by Roland Emmerich tend to do well.
The mystical Mayan crap is actually going to be taken as fact in the same way The Da Vinci Code was.
Lots of nationalities are (clunkily) represented in the form of token Americans, Russians and Asians.
It is carefully designed to appeal to certain countries as there are shots which look like they could be specific for certain territories. (For instance, in one scene Cusack finds a London tube map (!) but I reckon in different countries he finds something relevant to where the movie is shown. Ditto for a similar scene involving famous world figures in which I (and UK audiences) saw a famous lady and her dogs. I’m sure in other countries it will be another relevant figure.
But the final fact worth bearing in mind in mind is that this is essentially a summer blockbuster which just happens to be opening in November.
Sony’s original plan was to open this last July but back in January they opted to shift it to November. A smart move because there’s not a huge amount of blockbuster competition that there is in the summer.
My guess is that the bad critical buzz and word of mouth will dent the grosses a bit, but watch out for how many people see this in cinemas, on DVD/Blu-ry and on TV.
Sometimes I’m asked why films like this and Transformers 2 do so well and part of the reason is that they are so heavily marketed with tantalising eye candy (“Ooh, look at the CGI destruction!”) that it is the cinematic equivalent of class A drugs. People know it’s bad, but still go anyway because they want a bit of escape.
I could be wrong. People might be put off by the lack of a decent script and stay at home, but this feels like a Hollywood fairground ride many will be queuing up for.
The new comedy horror Jennifer’s Body is out in the UK today and as it is generally my policy not waste to many words on bad films, here are some quick thoughts:
It is really bad.
Diablo Cody‘s script shows none of the wit and feeling present in Juno
Karyn Kusama‘s direction is shocking (was this really the same person who made Girlfight?)
Nearly all the characters are repellent and annoying, which wouldn’t be such a bad thing if done in a way that was witty or clever.
The recession, human relationships, jobs and travel are just some of the issues explored inthis smart, funny and thoughtful adaptation of Walter Kim’s 2001 novel.
When we first meet Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) in Up in the Air we discover that his job is to inform people that they no longer have theirs. Employed by an Omaha based company, his life is spent flying around the US firing people in a smooth and efficient manner because bosses want to outsource this awkward process.
Free of human relationships, he has become attached to frequent flyer miles and the buzz of being a master at living out of a suitcase. But when his boss (Jason Bateman) informs him that he must train a new recruit (Anna Kendrick) who is advocating firing people via video-link, things begin to change.
Perhaps the most striking aspect of Up in the Air is how it makes you ponder gloomy subjects whilst you laugh at the jokes. Much of the film is a breezy, observational comedy with finely honed lead performances and sparkling dialogue. It feels like a road movie set amongst airports (a ‘plane movie’, in a sense) as the characters go on a literal and emotional journey across America.
Underneath the witty, often hilarious, surface lies a more serious and perceptive exploration about losing work and finding love. The script even updates the themes of the book to the current era (one sequence is dated as happening in February 2010) by having recently fired workers essentially play versions of themselves.
This potentially clunky device is weaved in skilfully (some audiences may miss it first time, although subconsciously it will register) and sets us up for the latter stages, which show an admirable restraint from the usual Hollywood resolutions. But before we reach that point, there is much to feast on.
One of the key selling points is George Clooney, a Hollywood star with the charm and wit of a bygone era. Given his commendable passion for doing different kinds of films (some behind the camera) it is easy to forget what a magnetic presence he can be as a screen actor.
With its one liners, speeches and sly underbelly of emotion, this is a role he was almost born to play and he delivers the goods in spades. Not since Out of Sight has he been this Clooneyesque. One line in particular (actually scripted by Reitmanâs father) is an absolute zinger delivered to perfection, which youâll know when you hear it as the whole cinema will be laughing.
In the key supporting roles Anna Kendrick (who first stood out in 2007’s Rocket Science) shows excellent timing as the peppy graduate keen to prove her worth whilst Vera Farmiga is a superb foil for Clooney as his air-mile obsessed love interest. Jason Bateman adds some sly touches as Clooney’s boss and there is a nice cameo from Sam Elliott (which may or may not be a reference to the 1988 thriller Shakedown – released in the UK as Blue Jean Cop – which also involves a plane and Elliott).
The technical aspects of the film are first rate across the board; with Dana Glaubetman‘s editing worthy of special mention as it helps keep proceedings ticking along beautifully. Jason Reitman co-wrote the script with Sheldon Turner and directs with an energetic but delicate touch. Compared to his previous films, it has the delicious wit of Thank You for Smoking and the unsentimental emotions of Juno, but actually surpasses both in terms of mixing up the light and heavy elements.
Unlike a lot of book to screen transitions the film arguably improves the central drama by throwing more profound doubts at the protagonist. I won’t spoil the final movement by revealing key details (because that would be silly) but I can’t help feeling it will provoke an interesting kaleidoscope of reactions.
When I saw it, an audience member in front of me was laughing loudly at some of the firing scenes (presumably unaware that the people on screen were drawing on recent painful experiences) and it raised some interesting questions. Is this a comedy or a drama? Is their laughter in pain and sadness in humour? How will mainstream audiences in a recession – for whom cinema is traditionally an escape – react to such a film?
Perhaps the human experience of life, work and relationships is bitter-sweet, no matter how rich, employed or happy you consider yourself to be. But that a film from a major Hollywood studio would probe such areas in such an entertaining way is refreshing, particularly as the laughter here provokes genuine thought rather than providing simple relief.
One idea that some audiences will possibly mull on as the end credits roll is that human relationships are what really counts in an increasingly impersonal and technology driven society. But I am not so sure that is the case, even if it is what the filmmakers intended. Wisely, the film leaves out the pat focus-group approved resolution.
Finally, if you actually stay until the very end credits (which audiences often don’t) you’ll hear something unexpected. I won’t reveal what happens but it sounds like the essence of the film, that of connections trying to be made in a world where they are increasingly drying up.
Like the movie, it is funny, sad and makes you think.
The film adaptation of Cormac McCarthy‘s devastating 2006 novel is a haunting tale of survival in a post-apocalyptic world featuring two outstanding lead performances.
The Road depicts the journey of a father (Viggo Mortensen) and son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) as they struggle to stay alive in an America which has descended into savagery after an unspecified environmental and social collapse.
Part of the story’s raw power is the absence of any explanation as to why the world is collapsing, which shifts the focus on to the central relationship and the day to day struggle to survive.
Given that the story involves suicide, cannibalism and humans acting like savages you have to give credit to director John Hillcoat (who made the wonderfully gritty Australian western The Proposition in 2005) and screenwriter Joe Penhall (author of the acclaimed play Blue/Orange) for properly translating the horrors and emotions of the novel into a film.
Central to why it works is the focus on the day to day struggle to survive and the resistance of  horror movie clichÊs which have stunk up the cinema in recent years with the plethora of zombie movies this decade and the likes of Saw and Hostel which contain plenty of gore but little genuine emotions.
Key to making this film so affecting are the two  central performances which convey the love, anguish and desperation of their appalling situation and their deep love for one another. Mortensen as the unnamed father is (as usual) terrific but Smit-McPhee is more than his match, especially as the film progresses and he gradually becomes the moral heart of the piece.
The visual look is particularly striking: cinematographer Javier Aguirresa opts for a brownish palette to depict the harsh, ash-ridden environment. The art direction and production design also makes very clever use of rural US locations to create a chilling post-apocalyptic world.
Audiences unfamiliar with the novel may be taken aback by how bleak the story is and the film certainly doesn’t pull its punches: roaming gangs of cannibals, potential suicide and houses filled with half alive bodies are just some aspects that will disturb, although the most notorious scene from the book is omitted.
But the oppressive tone is there for a reason as it is part of the book’s power. It adds to the tension of the journey but also makes the stakes for the father and son all the more real. Unlike horror films where victims are meaningless pawns, the characters here are rounded people you desperately care about.
Another thing to look out for is the interesting supporting cast, which is filled with excellent performances –  most of which are extended cameos – from Charlize Theron, Robert Duvall and Guy Pearce. The soundtrack by Nick Cave and Warren Ellis  strikes an appropriately mournful tone with a notable piano motif reminiscent of Arvo Paart.
The Road was supposed to come out in the US last year and there has been some chatter that it was a troubled production the US distributors The Weinstein Company were nervous about. Given that the novel was one of the most acclaimed of the decade, no doubt they felt they had a good shot at awards glory.
When it premiered in Venice, it divided opinion but it really is an admirable film on many levels. The filmmakers have preserved the uncompromising nature of the McCarthy’s source material but also crafted a deeply moving drama of love in a time of death. In McCarthy’s words they have ‘carried the fire’.
The Road screened today at the London Film Festival and opens in the US on November 25th and the UK on January 8th 2010
For anyone who hasn’t read Ronson’s book, the title comes from a secret Army unit founded in 1979 called the ‘First Earth Battalion’ who conducted paranormal experiments which included staring at goats in order to kill them.
Why was US taxpayer money being used in this way? After the trauma of Vietnam and Cold War paranoia still in the air, it seems that the military brass were willing to allow a unit to pursue paranormal experiments and all kinds of New Age ideas.
With names changed and details tweaked, the film uses a fictional framing narrative of an Ann Arbor journalist (Ewan McGregor) who hears about these strange practices and when he goes to cover the Iraq war in 2003 he encounters  a former member of the unit (George Clooney) who provides him with more stories.
In flashback we learn the history of  the unit created under Bill Django (Jeff Bridges) at Fort Bragg which trained soldiers to be ‘Jedi Warriors’ with special powers. (Note the irony of McGregor not playing a ‘Jedi’ here despite the fact that he played the most famous Jedi of all in the Star Wars prequels).
Amongst these are Lynn Cassady (Clooney), Larry Hooper (Kevin Spacey) and General Hopgood (Stephen Lang). As McGregor’s journalist slowly uncovers their history he begins to see how their methods connect to George W Bush‘s war on terror.
Fans of the book should be prepared for something a little different from the film but credit should go screenwriter Peter Straughan who has done a clever job in incorporating the details into a narrative framework and weaving many of the best details into certain scenes. There is quite a lot of voiceover from McGregor, but the fact that he’s a journalist helps soften what can sometimes be a clunky storytelling device.
The tone here is somewhat similar to the dry, knowing slapstick of the Coen Brothers (such as Burn After Reading or The Big Lebowski) and director Grant Heslov manages to mine the source material for plenty of laughs.
The theme of the film seems to be how the US military will embrace any idea – no matter how whacky – in the pursuit of its goals and how the insanity of Cold War simply fermented such thinking. As the film reminds us, Ronald Regan was a big fan of Star Wars (one of his missile programmes was nicknamed after it) and even had a wife who believed in astrological readings.
The logic in creating a unit of ‘Jedi warriors’ during the Cold War seemed to come out of paranoia that they had to do it before the Russians did – even if was crazy.
Heslov and Straughn seem to be channelling the spirit of such films as Dr Strangelove, Three Kings and Catch 22 for the War on Terror generation. The cast is uniformly good with the standout performance coming from Clooney (who is perfectly deadpan throughout), although why directors seem hell-bent on casting McGregor as an American is a mystery given his wonky US accent.
However, the chemistry between Clooney and McGregor works well in their extended sequences together and the film is consistently funny, if not flat out hilarious or possessing the political savvy of the films that inspired it. Impressively, the events of the book are compressed neatly into a highly watchable 93 minutes, with precious little fat or waste.
On the tech side, the visuals look impressive for a mid-budget movie, whilst special praise must go to cinematographer Robert Elswit (one of the best currently working in Hollywood) who shoots some of the locations superbly with New Mexico doubling for Iraq and Puerto Rico standing in for Vietnam and other places.
Quite how this will do at the box office remains an open question. Despite being very accessible and featuring a stellar cast, the fact that it is effectively an indie (made by Overture Films and BBC Films) might mean it lacks the marketing power of bigger funded studio rivals.
The surreal nature of the story might baffle people – as an opening title says: “More of this is true than you would believe” – which leaves the question as to how much you do actually believe. That said, I can see it playing well with audiences and UK distributor Momentum Pictures can expect it to do well if enough buzz is created.
The Men Who Stare at Goats screened tonight at the LFF and goes on general release in the UK on November 6
An animated adaptation of Roald Dahl’s children’s book seemed an unlikely project for director Wes Anderson but it captures the charms of the source material and is likely to be his biggest box office hit.
However, he can’t let go of his wild instincts and regularly raids the chicken coops of the irate local farmers (Michael Gambon, Adrien Brody and Brian Cox) who declare war on him.
In some ways the film is a curious hybrid: a recognizable Anderson film with his usual kooks and quirks; an adaptation of a beloved book and a mainstream animated release from a major studio (appropriately enough, Fox).
Anderson’s films over the last decade have been the Hollywood equivalent of gourmet food – undeniably tasty but a bit too refined for mainstream tastes and sometimes too rich for even his admirers.
His best work remains his earlier films: Bottle Rocket (1996) and Rushmore (1998) as they combined his style, wit and taste with a tangible pang of emotion.
Since The Royal Tenenbaums (2001) his films have become too trapped within their own stylistic tics: British invasion soundtracks, privileged characters with parental issues, distinctive clothing, Kubrick-style fonts and so on.
Films like The Life Aquatic (2004) and The Darjeeling Limited (2007) have certainly above the Hollywood standard – and in places quite brilliant – but the sense of Anderson not quite taking his work to another level has been hard to shake off.
What makes Fantastic Mr Fox refreshing is that although it bears some of his stylistic trademarks, the switch to animation has given him a new lease of life.
Clocking in at just 89 minutes it moves briskly and has a nice, breezy attitude, embodied by the central character who remains coolly charming even in the most perilous situations.
There is a charm and simplicity to the central characters and – unlike some of Anderson’s recent creations – they feel more rounded and less like stylistic puppets, which is ironic given that they literally are puppets.
Schwartzmann’s voice over work is especially noteworthy, hitting a precise tone of innocence and weariness as a young fox trying to find himself in the world.
The original book was accompanied by the distinctive artwork of Quentin Blake and Anderson – and his creative team – have opted for their own bold approach, using stop motion animation instead of CGI.
The low-fi aesthetic reaps considerable dividends as it gives the characters and their surrounding world a distinctive visual flavour. The foxes especially look especially great in close up with their hair moving a bit like King Kong in the 1933 version.
There is the odd Anderson-style indulgence (watch out for a scene with a wolf) but these can be forgiven as the film works it’s magic and charm on a visual and emotional level.
Listen out too for some nicely off the wall musical choices which include: The Rolling Stones, The Beach Boys, Burl Ives, Jarvis Cocker (who has a cameo) and some Ennio Morricone style musings.
It will be interesting to see how this plays with family audiences when it opens in a couple of weeks. Although based on a famous source, it has gags and references that may fly over the heads of younger audiences.
Despite that, it contains enough visual delights for audiences of all ages and may catch fire at the box office, especially in Britain where Roald Dahl is still very popular with a huge amount of readers.
It won’t do the same numbers as Up or Ice Age 3 but there is definitely potential here for some decent global box office.
More to the point, what was up with the crazy title? The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans (N.B. IMDb and other outlets wrongly leave off the ‘The’, which can be seen in the title sequence)
When I saw the logo of Millennium Films, alarms bells started ringing as this is Avi Lerner’s production company which has burped up such recent schlock as The Wicker Man remake, 88 Minutes and Righteous Kill. Would this be another lazy pay day vehicle for a recognised star? What exactly is going on here?
My guess is that the project came about because: producer Edward R Pressman wanted to revamp the original film (which remember was NC-17 in the US and something of an under-performing cult);Â Herzog had some mainstream heat after two widely acclaimed documentaries (Grizzly Man and Encounters at the End of the World); name actors like Cage, Eva Mendes and Val Kilmer were keen to work with the great director; and a pulpy script piqued the interest of all concerned.
Plus, I reckon that Herzog may have wanted to flex his creative muscles within the confines of a more generic film on a bigger than usual budget for him.
When it premièred at the Venice film festival word on the festival street was mixed and that is likely to be mirrored when it opens in cinemas.
Having seen it earlier today at an LFF press preview I can only confirm that it is indeed an insane reinterpretation of the Ferrara film. Whereas that was a bold look at a tortured soul hurtling towards his own version of hell, this one is much loopier affair that almost wilfully subverts the Catholic guilt of the original.
The set-up here involves Terrence McDonagh (Nicolas Cage), a New Orleans cop who starts out receiving a medal and a promotion to lieutenant for heroism during Hurricane Katrina. But after injuring his back he soon becomes addicted to all kinds of drugs and finds himself involved with drug dealer (Alvin “Xzibit” Joiner) who is suspected of murdering a family of African immigrants.
We follow McDonagh as he tries to keep the various parts of his life in check including: his prostitute girlfriend (Eva Mendes); his hot-headed partner (Val Kilmer); a local bookie (Brad Dourif) and all manner of criminals.
This sounds like it could be the premise of a conventional crime movie and there are elements of William Finkelstein’s script that bear the hallmarks of the traditional cop procedural. But filtered through the lens of Herzog, we have something different altogether.
As the story progresses Cage’s character takes gargantuan amounts of drugs (coke, heroin, crack), shakes down clubbers and then screws their girlfriends in front of them, runs up huge debts, threatens old age pensioners and does all this wearing an oversize suit with a funny looking revolver.
But this only scratches the surface, as Herzog adds some wildly surreal touches involving iguanas and alligators shot in extreme hand held close-up, whacky interludes involving dogs, horny traffic cops and hilariously over the top dialogue delivered by Cage in a couple of different accents  (my favourite lines being “‘Shoot him again! His soul is still dancing!” and “to the break of DAWNNNN!!!!”).
In some ways the relationship between this and the earlier work mirrors that between Harvey Keitel’s deranged cop and the NYPD in the first film. Strange, out of control and defiantly off its head, it seems destined for cult status: appealing to cinephiles and late night stoner audiences.
To makes things even stranger, the war of words that broke out over the idea of remaking was similarly bizarre. Ferrara was less than happy that the project went ahead at all and was quoted as saying:
“As far as remakes go, ⌠I wish these people die in Hell. I hope they’re all in the same streetcar, and it blows up.”
“I’ve never seen a film by him. I have no idea who he is.”
I can only assume the Bavarian maestro was having a laugh when he said this. At a press conference at Venice after the film’s première, he also said of Ferrara:
“I would like to meet the man,” and “I have a feeling that if we met and talked, over a bottle of whisky, I should add, I think we could straighten everything out.”
Although on the basis of this film it makes you wonder if the makers have been taking something altogether stronger than whiskey.
As I was watching it unfold on screen I found myself frequently laughing and then questioning if I was laughing with or at the film. In a strange way I think it was both, although it should be noted that the festival audience I saw it with gave a spontaneous burst of applause at the end.
The US opening is on November 20th and although it won’t make a ton of money, it should be profitable and find its natural home on DVD and late night TV where I’m sure it will be savoured under the influence of certain substances.
Coming of age dramas can often fall prey to clichÊ or sentimentality but An Education manages to avoid avoid such pitfalls to become something really special.
Skilfully directed by Lone Scherfig from an intelligent and heartfelt script by Nick Hornby, it evokes the charming drabness of the period whilst accurately depicting the emotional minefield that teenage years can be.
Although similar stories have been told before what makes this one stick out is the quality of the writing and the way in which the principal players really sink their creative teeth into it.
Carey Mulligan is already being tipped as a major star on the basis of her performance here and such hype is largely justified. She has the raw acting presence casting directors kill for and manages to combine deep emotions with an easygoing charm, skilfully moving between the two.
Peter Sarsgaard provides a smooth foil and largely convinces as a smooth talking Englishman, even if his accent sometimes wavers; Alfred Molina and Cara Seymour make amusingly naive parents; and Rosamund Pike hits just the right note as one of Jenny new ‘sophisticated’ friends.
Nearly all the characters are nicely drawn: instead of the one-note stereotypes that often litter British made films, they often have hidden sides that are slowly revealed, faults which are understandable and aren’t solely defined by their class and background.
Two of the minor characters who especially stand out are Olivia Williams as a teacher at Jenny’s school and Emma Thompson as a stern headmistress. Both have limited screen time, but make a considerable impact in roles with hidden depths.
Period pieces can sometimes be an excuse for cheap nostalgia but one of the clever ideas here is how the dawning of the 1960s is almost used as a metaphor for teenage years themselves, when contemporary music, films and culture feel particularly special.
Scherfig moves things along at a nice pace and perhaps her outside perspective (she’s a Danish director who came to notice with the Dogme95 movement) give the film its passion and energy whilst Hornby’s script throws up a highly pleasing mixture of laughs and emotions.
The period detail of the early 60s is evoked with some sterling contributions from the technical side, notably production designer Andrew McAlpine, costume designer Odile Dicks-Mireaux and cinematographer John de Borman.
There is the occasional misstep, notably a jarring voice over at the close, but for the most part this a rare kind of British film: one that feeds the brain, touches the heart and tickles the funny bone.
It looks highly likely to be an awards season contender (and a virtual shoo-in for the BAFTAs) but it will be interesting to see how it fairs at the box office.
No doubt UK distributor E1 Films can expect very good critical buzz in the UK later this month (presumably aided by a blitz of Carey Mulligan profiles in Sunday newspapers) but the US roll-out will be trickier.
My guess is that it will do well enough to create the awareness for Oscar season but fingers will be crossed, given how smaller, acclaimed films (such as The Hurt Locker) have not really broken through this year.
An Education opens in the US on October 9th and the UK on October 30th
In the the 2008 documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, the prosecutor Roger Gunson commented on the recurring themes of the director’s work:
“Every Roman Polanski movie has the theme [of] corruption meeting innocence over water”
The infamous events of March 1977 could be interpreted in these terms: Polanski (corruption) met Samantha Geimer (innocence) over water (Jack Nicholson’s jacuzzi).
But do the posters of his films shed any light on the unfolding drama?
Some of them are ironic, to say the least.
Repulsion (1965) had one poster with two hands touching a woman’s body:
Another had the tagline:
“The nightmare world of a Virgin’s dreams becomes the screen’s shocking reality!”
The Fearless Vampire Killers (1967) has the image of a vampire about to sink his fangs into a half naked woman in water and, for good measure, carries the warning:
“Not suitable for children”
What?(1972) had a poster which is almost certain to give any card-carrying feminists pause for thought – a buxom woman is pictured bending over the top of the grinning mouth of a man.
An unusual promotional event held at cinemas around the world, it saw about 100,000 viewers, who had signed up for free tickets online, get shown an extended preview of the film on IMAX screens in 3-D.
But what exactly is Avatar all about?
It is a sci-fic tale set in the future that has been filmed on cutting edge 3-D digital cameras that produce stereoscopic images that simulate human sight.
The story centres around a former marine named Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), who was wounded and paralyzed in combat on Earth and is selected to participate in the Avatar program, which enables him to walk and travel to Pandora, a jungle-covered extraterrestrial moon filled with different life forms.
It is also home to the Naâvi race, a tall humanoid species with tails and blue skin. As humans encroach on the planet in search of minerals, Jake becomes part of a program by which he can live through the genetically-bred human-Naâvi hybrid known as Avatars.
The Avatars are living, breathing bodies that are controlled by a human “driver” through a technology that links the driver’s mind to their Avatar body. On Pandora, through his Avatar body, Jake can walk once again through his new alien body.
Sent deep into Pandora’s jungles to scout for the soldiers that will follow, Jake discovers more about the planet and meets a young Naâvi female, Neytiri (Zoe Saldana) who he soon becomes attached to.
Amanda Nevill of the BFI and Chris Green of Fox UK gave short introductory speeches before they started the presentation.
A 50-foot-tall version of James Cameron appeared in 3-D, welcoming us to ‘the 22nd century’ and said that he wanted to offer more than just a trailer, explaining that we were about to see 15 minutes of the film (all taken from the first half of the film, so there were no major spoilers).
Here is how it broke down (if you don’t want to know what happens, then stop reading now):
1. The first shot was of boots walking along the ground whilst a voice says âYouâre not in Kansas anymoreâ and we quickly see that it is a military officer (Stephen Lang) talking to his cadets. The music accompanying this is Journey to the Line from The Thin Red Line soundtrack by Hans Zimmer – which I’m guessing a temp track whilst the score has yet to be completed. The officer tells them that theyâre about to be deployed on the planet Pandora, where âeverything that walks, flies or squats in the mud wants to kill you and eat your eyes for jujubes.â While heâs speaking, we see the wheelchair-bound soldier Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) enter the room. My initial impression was that the depth of the image was something I hadn’t seen before and it took a little getting used too.
2. The next sequence showed Jake lie on a machine that looks like a futuristic sunbed which is then inserted into what looks like an ultrasound machine. A scientist (Sigourney Weaver) is talking him through a procedure that will see him wake up in the body of his Naâvi avatar: a tall blue alien and he seems pleased that he can walk again.
3. The third sequence cuts to the planet and follows Jake (in his alien body) on a jungle-like planet as heâs told how to deal with the planetâs free-roaming population of strange dinosaur like creatures. The environment is pretty rich in detail and reminded me a little of the landscapes in a previous WETA creation – Skull Island in King Kong (2005).
4. A night time sequence on the same planet, we see Jake, separated from his group, get rescued from a dinosaur attack by a female Naâviwho fights with a bow and arrow. I’m pretty sure this character is Neytiri (played by Zoe Saldana). Jake thanks her but she is angry and dismissive.
5. A daytime sequence with Jake and a group of native Naâvi, including Neytiri, on a mountain by a steep waterfall, where a flock of winged creatures are nesting. Jake tries to tame it and has to wrestle one to the ground and puts something in its mouth which calms it down. The female warrior shouts that he must take his first flight on its back to bond with it. Jake and his new creature then go tumbling off the side of the waterfall in a giddy sequence. This was impressively cut and shot and gave a glimpse of the epic feel Cameron is going for.
The very final images were a shortened version of the trailer before it all ended.
My initial impressions were that the scenes were a little too short to make any kind of sweeping prediction about the film.
I was perhaps expecting slightly sharper image quality (along the lines of The Dark Knight in IMAX) but then this was shot on digital cameras rather than on IMAX film, so perhaps that was an issue.
However, there was definitely enough to pique people’s interest and I suspect Cameron is saving the really juicy sequences for the proper theatrical release.
On the subject of the trailer, it was released on Thursday and seemed to be the main talking point in the queue beforehand. I wanted to avoid watching it before I saw the IMAX footage, but here it is in case you didn’t catch it.
According to a press release from the studio, it is now the most viewed trailer of all time on the Apple Trailers site, with over four million streams in its first day, shattering the previous record of 1.7 million (and this isn’t taking in to account the official and unofficial plays on YouTube).
My guess is that this backlash (of sorts) is something to do with the way Avatar has been ‘pre-sold’ in marketing terms with hype about how it will revolutionise cinema with its astounding never-seen-before visuals.
Given the buzz and publicity the 25 minute preview at Comic-con got, Fox were presumably hoping that all was well in the long Avatar marketing campaign.
But selling a movie isn’t what it used to be and given the quick, online global dissection of anything produced by movie studios it was perhaps inevitable that the first Avatar trailer would struggle to live up to expectations.
However, let’s just hold it right there. The Avatar trailer is (or is perceived to be) struggling to live up to the hype. It says something about the modern movie business that this is the case.
The major studios have been willing to embrace this pre-release hype as we have seen in recent years when genre films (like Iron Man, The Spirit and Watchmen) Â have all had big pushes at Comic-con.
This is the bizarre but now fully accepted practice of having a press conference, screening trailers and doing a full schedule of press about a film that isn’t even finished.
My guess is that Fox will be a little disappointed with some of the online reactions to the Avatar trailer but I think Cameron deserves to be cut some slack – shouldn’t we wait to see the actual film before passing judgement like this?
You know the one with the proper story which gives proper context to the images seen so far?
In this current age I guess keeping everything top secret until opening day isn’t an option but part of me wonders if movie studios could learn a trick or two from Apple.
They keep everything secret and by the time Steve Jobs unveils the latest i-Whatever the fever pitch has built to a frenzy bordering on the religuous.
Would it be impossible to release a movie like an iPhone? And is the current drawn out cycle of hype a help or a hindrance? Does it even matter given the many millions of dollars Fox will use to blitz conventional media outlets (TV, print & radio etc) in December?
It will be interesting to see what Fox does from now until the release. Aside from geeky community complaints, I’m guessing the major issue they have to address is what Avatar is (or means) to the wider public who don’t follow the minutiae of fanboy buzz on Twitter.
The new film has a promising concept: what would Gekko himself make of the financial crises of 2008 and the bailout of Wall Street banks by the taxpayer?
The sight of futuristic US helicopters landing on jungles and firing incendiary bombs on the native Na’vi echoes 
But perhaps even more striking is its similarity to another low budget sensation, 
When 
One of the key selling points is George Clooney, a Hollywood star with the charm and wit of a bygone era. Given his commendable passion for doing different kinds of films (some 
The story centres around a former marine named Jake Sully (