Now, I don’t know about you, but I like to approach a film knowing as little as possible about the plot and having seen as little of it beofre I go in as I can. More of a draw for me is who has directed or written it, what the premise is, who is in it, or what firends and critics have said about it. I don’t want to see the whole film beofre I go in – I want to be pleasantly surprised and shocked or amazed in front of it. Now occasionally this has gotten me into trouble, taking someone to see a film which has tormented them for a few days afterwards (whoops) but on the whole it’s an approach that I’ll stick up for.

Most of the time trailers either: (a) ruin or; (b) completely misrepresent the film they are advertising. Sometimes both. A case in point is ‘Fight Club’ – the trailer makes the film look like dumb, brainless people-thumping-each-other film entirely without merit and immediately put me off watching it. It took a large number of people telling me that actually it was a very good film until I was able to overcome this and watch what turned out to be a very good film.

It’s like the Gillette razor TV adverts – they are so insultingly terrible that I don’t want to give anyone who thinks that represents or is aspirational to me any creedence or money, so I will NEVER buy anything by Gillette ever again on the basis of their own continued evidence.

Time and time again a trailer puts me off a film I would have otherwise gone and seen which is surely the opposite of the desired effect? A number of them seem to follow the same, uninspired format as well, and the one for ‘The Descendants’ (the new Alexander Payne film starring Georgel Clooney) is an example.

Take a look at this:

Okay, so George Clooney lives on Hawaii, but he’s still got family problems. He’s got to step up to the plate and reconnect with his children. Ooohh, I wonder if he will, I wonder how this will turn out. Oh no, they’re going to show us how it turns out. Oh look, he hates his daughter’s boyfriend, I wonder what’ll happen there. And after a few dodgy vocal edits the next musical bed kicks in under a soppy montage and the music is so sickening it makes me want to scream out loud in the cinema. They even start repeating lines before they get to the end, as if it wasn’t long enough already!

So now I have a dilemma as this is supposed to be another good film with a great central performance by George Clooney. And I really liked ‘Sideways’ which Alexander Payne directed. But I can’t bring myself to go and watch something with such a hate-inducing and revealing trailer. If I hadn’t been shown the trailer (I can’t easily avoid it) I’d probably already have gone to see it.

I know I might be judging books by their covers a little here, but how else are you supposed to pick out a book in the shop?

Whilst it might not initially sound like the most inviting proposition, this black and white 4:3 ratio silent melodrama is really worth your effort. It’s as much a celebration of cinema itself as it is an uplifting and joyous tale.

The inter-titles first pop up with the year – 1927 – in a beautiful curvy typeface, and the film starts with a truly inspiring scene that has you yearning to travel back to the late twenties to really appreciate the spectacle and atmosphere of a filled huge cinema theatre with a live band accompanying the images on the screen. But as the music winds down to silence at the end of this scene, I did have a moments concern that perhaps the format wouldn’t maintain itself over the feature length.

Concerns that were not realised, as watching a silent film like this (which does have a musical score and occasional dialogue inter-titles) is similar to watching a sub-titled foreign language film in that you don’t really notice the format after a few minutes. You do have to pick your moment to open a bottle of sparkling water though!

The characters of the story (there’s only two leads and two or three supporting roles really, unless you count the dog) are endearing and rounded from the start and you really feel for them as they ride the highs and lows of the film. George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) is the confident and ebullient silent film actor at the top of his game who bumps into fan and aspiring actress Peppy Miller (Bérénice Bejo) outside the premiere of his new film. The film studio set is beautiful and there’s a charming scene with George’s jacket when Peppy calls into his dressing room. The plot is painted mainly with images, with surprisingly few inter-titles required to clarify things along the way, although I did miss some information in one particular section where Goerge rushes home after an exchange on the street in front of a shop window – the reasoning of his actions was lost on me there. Also, you can’t help but think that George could have made his life a whole lot easier at times, but then it wouldn’t be a melodrama if he had I suppose.

The cast is completed with cigar-smoking film boss Al Zimmer (John Goodman), George’s wife Doris (Penelope Ann Miller) whose doodling touches are very funny, and George’s driver Clifton (James Cromwell) who is a kind, generous, reliable man.

In fact, sitting in the cinema with ripped jeans, a t-shirt, a hoody and a few days stubble I felt incredibly underdressed. George has the most marvellous moustache (take note for movember) and everyone on screen is impeccably turned out and polite.

So, it’s funny, touching, fully engaging, beautifully shot and coherent, this is a very good film.

4 on 5

Info:
Director: Michel Hazanavicius
Starring: Jean Dujardin, Bérénice Bejo, John Goodman, Penelope Ann Miller, James Cromwell
UK Release – 30th December 2011

.

Why did they have to put that in brackets? And why did they have to call her Summer? Just to create a pun title for the film, or just an elaborate setup for the final line? And why did they have to fracture the timeline? And why does the slightly out-of-place voice-over announce that this isn’t a love story when it blatantly is?

It’s a frustrating set of questions you’re left with after what could be a really great different-perspective rom-com. I understand why the film starts out with Tom Hansen (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) splitting up from Summer Finn (Zooey Deschanel) and then returns to the start of the relationship – that way it clarifies that you’re seeing the relationship from his remembered point of view and it half reassures you that it’s not going to be your run-of-the-mill standard rom-com ‘boy meets girl, everyone lives happily ever after’ tale, but there seems little need to fracture the timeline other than to try and inject a bit of cool into it. Some of the plot devices come across like that too – both loving The Smiths being one.

The crux of the story is that Tom falls in love with Summer and she doesn’t quite feel the same way. Still, they share many moments of romance and passion over the next few months such as a magical trip to Ikea (believe it or not) and Summer seems unaware (or worse – uncaring) about the effect she is having on Tom.

There are some truly inspired scenes in this. The photocopier scene is one, the musical walk to work is another and perhaps the stand-out sequence is Tom going to a party Summer invites him to, as the screen is split into two with ‘expectations’ and ‘reality’ playing alongside each other – brilliant. Some of the details are frighteningly realistic and will strike a familiar chord with most I’m sure. The pain of unrequited love, the reluctance to commit but also to stop (“You’re not the only one who has a say in this you know and I say we’re a couple”) and the dropping of the ‘F’ bomb (“Wait! You’re still my best friend!”) are excellently portrayed.

But then there’s the cardboard-cutout friends and the clever younger sister who don’t sit as well in the mix. And what’s the whole drawing a skyline on her arm whilst mumbling about how they need to ‘maximise the light’ about?

Perfectly watchable, strikes an uncomfortable chord at times, very sweet at others but sadly short of a classic.

3 on 5

Director: Marc Webb
Cast: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Zooey Deschanel, Chloe Moretz, Geoffrey Arend, Matthew Grey Gubler, Clark Gregg
UK Release: Sep 4 2009

Well, this is the third time I’ve gone through this story so it’s becoming difficult to approach it with an unbiased or unknowing eye, so for comparison and thoughts on the story itself, here are my thoughts on the book and the first film.

Book – http://freaksreviews.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/the-girl-with-the-dragon-tattoo-novel/
Film – http://freaksreviews.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/the-girl-with-the-dragon-tattoo-film/

This adaptation directed by David Fincher stars Daniel Craig as Mikael Blomkvist and Rooney Mara as Lisbeth Salander. I think they both carry it off very well actually. Daniel Craig plays a Blomkvist as a knowledgeable and engaging character and Rooney Mara plays Salander in a similar but subtlety different way to Noomi Rapace from the original. Mara’s Salander is a little younger as well as more frail and vulnerable and this perhaps sits better with her situation and helps explains her violent responses a bit better.

On that point, a lot of people feel the violence is excessive in a couple of key scenes with Salander’s guardian and I have to disagree completely with that view. I think that although the events are terrible, none of the actual acts are dwelled upon or even seen by the camera. I also think that the whole situation is an absolutely key backstory in Salander’s character when it comes to Blomkvist proposing that she helps him. Her instinct would be to be to instantly reject pairing up with someone, but when Craig delivers the (admittedly cheesy) “I want you to help me catch a killer of women” line, Mara’s twinkle of interest is made all the more believable by the events seen previously.

In between those scenes we see Salander visit a club and pickup a woman before going back to her flat for some extra curricular activity. Now this scene I do see as unnecessary – its always nice to see attractive naked women, but I have to admit it isn’t necessary for the story and doesn’t add to her character in any way that I could tell.

There is still a bit too much ground to cover in one film and the initial setup is still a bit bewildering and, really, completely unnecessary. The plot expositions and montages later on in the story are as generic as ever too, but there is an element to the investigation that seems glossed over on all three versions of the story that I’ve read/seen and that is [PLOT SPOILER!] that when Blomkvist first meets Henrik Vagner he explains how Harriet used to give him a pressed flower every year on his birthday and that this has continued. He presumes by the killer to torment him, but to me it is blatantly obvious that this is Harriet trying to send him a signal that she’s alive whilst maintaining her anonymity wherever she is. I would have thought that the bible verses would have been picked up earlier too, especially as Harriet is painted as very religious in this film.

Mara’s more vulnerable Salander is again noted in one of the final scenes where she goes to give Boomkvist a present but sees him leaving with Erika Berger and changes her mind, slams her defences down and rides off into independence again. It’s actually very sad.

Oh, and I haven’t mentioned the opening credit sequence yet. How could I forget – they are awful. There is a terrible Trent Reznor version of Led Zeppelin’s Immigrant Song playing over a near-monochrome montage of cables and dripping T100-style metal. It says “Okay, we want a Bond-esque franchise establishing title sequence here. Get me a music video director to inject some grit and attitude” and then when it’s all finally over you can take a breath and get on with the film rather than the posturing.

So, overall then, not many directorial changes – I’d have liked to have seen a stronger individual mark on the telling of the story rather than just a translation – but an acceptable introduction if you haven’t seen the original film or read the book. I’d say that you’re better off with the book though.

3 on 5

Director: David Fincher
Cast: Daniel Craig, Rooney Mara, Stellan Skarsgard, Robin Wright, Christopher Plummer
UK Release: 26th December 2011

PS – I have just come across this teaser poster which passed me by a couple of months ago. Quite incredible how it misses the point of the story by a very long way, but that’s a whole other post!

The film starts in Melbourne with the death of the Mother of 17 year old Joshua Cody (James Frecheville) which is the trigger for him to get back in contact with the side of the family that his Mother had eschewed. Josh seems to take everything in his stride with an emotionally strong way but as his loving, smiling, welcoming Grandma takes him into her suburban bosom, he starts getting dragged along with his Uncles and unintentionally caught up with their criminal ways. All is not as it initially appears.

It’s a very stylised film and the heavy use of filters creates an initially warm feel to the household but perhaps becomes a little distracting on occasions. The slow-burning away of the exteriors is well paced (especially with the Grandma) and nearing the end of the film I found myself angry and disgusted by the actions of some of the family. Actually, this key scene which leads to Josh showing real emotion for the first time in the film sat uncomfortably with me, not just because of their actions but also unfortunately because I found it very unbelievable. I didn’t find the actions of Pope difficult to attribute to him, rather the details of the incident badly executed and I’m not sure whether that is a script or directing issue but either way it was distracting.

Two scenes stood out for me. The first was where the character Pope was lecturing his brother on cleaning his hands after going to the toilet (“if you touch your knob or your arse, you wash your hands”!). This was funny but also a nice astute observation of the skewed moral compass that criminals often have.

The other was an excellent scene where Josh was trying to get a family out of their house and to safety. The tension was almost unbearable as the car slowly reversed down the drive and calmly pulled away down the street.

The ending was obvious from a fair way off but still satisfying. So overall a good solid, well acted watch that invokes a fair bit of emotion in the viewer.

3 on 5

UK Release: 25th February 2011
Director: David Michôd
Starring: Ben Mendelsohn, Joel Edgerton, Guy Pearce, Luke Ford, Jacki Weaver, Sullivan Stapleton, James Frecheville

Well it’s not automatic if you have to press a button is it!

The latest sitcom from writer/director team Ricky Gervais and Steve Merchant sees Warwick Davis playing ‘himself’ as the head of a small-person talent agency. Right from the beginning of the first episode it’s hard not to see Warwick as a smaller incarnation of David Brent. It is, essentially, exactly the same character but rather than being a self-unaware boss it’s a self-unaware dwarf actor.

The first episode sees Warwick setting the stall out and the various returning characters being introduced.

The star has a female assistant who is a bit dipsy and is always putting her foot in it and getting them both into awkward social situations, there’s also an accountant who is utterly useless and inexplicably still hired, Barry from Eastenders pottering about and lots of celebrity appearances from people such as Johnny Depp.

Oh no, whoops! I’ve just described ‘Extras’ accidentally there! How embarrassing! Seriously, though, read back that previous sentence and see if you can pick out something that doesn’t fit both programmes. Perhaps swap accountant for manager and that’s it.

There are some funny moments occasionally, but four episodes in I realised how unengaged I was as I tidied up the lounge and checked things on the computer while the episode was running. I found myself mentally switching-off mid-sentence at times and it was only at the very end of the episode when Les Dennis appeared and I laughed that I realised I hadn’t laughed once in the previous 30 minutes.

There is nothing new here and it feels horribly like Gervais and Merchant are treading water. They are both deeply funny people (Stephen Merchant’s recent stand-up tour was very good) and its worth remembering that their audiobooks, tv shows and feature length film have entertained me greatly over the years.

But this…………lazy. I don’t think it’s for me and I don’t think I’ll watch the remaining 3 or 4 episodes – life’s too short.

2 on 5

Written and Drirected by Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant
Starring: Warwick Davis
UK release: BBC Two, 10th November 2011

Errrrr……

The second episode of Charile Brooker’s self-contained feature length trilogies aired this week on Channel 4. Unlike the first episode (called ‘The National Anthem’) which dealt with a not-too-distant ridiculous political environment and played as a comment on social media, public image and the foolishness of using chat room opinion barometers, this episode entitled ‘Fifteen Million Merits’ was pure science fiction.

It opened with a man in a small bedroom, lined with screens for walls and devoid of any other furniture, artefacts or space. The revealing dystopian world is one where workers earn credits on an exercise bike (the bike presumably powering the national grid) to pay for their food, toothpaste and electronic content.

Bereft of possessions, the workers have not much to spend their credits on – only their virtual representations to adorn, content to view and, in a brilliantly prescient touch, adverts to skip. Being blasted with adverts which surround you, follow you round the room, pause when you close your eyes (and instruct you to open them) and only stop or skip when you pay with your credits is exactly where I feared the future arc of adverts was heading and we’re on the way there already (anyone used spotify recently?!)

This bland, repetitive, lifeless, respectless existence induces numbness in most of the drones and hate in others. But there are twinkles of life very occasionally and our protagonist Bing (Daniel Kaluuya) rebuffs someone else’s brightness before experiencing a sudden moment of clarity and a feeling of true beauty himself hearing a fellow worker singing. He encourages her to go and share her beauty on the X-Factor equivalent (Hot Shot), but will she do this? Will they recognise her gift? Can they humanise the machine?

An incredibly dark and bleak piece overall, as with all the best science fiction it is all about the humans involved and drawing comparisons to our current time. There’s a really truly beautiful and haunting version of Irma Thomas’s ‘Anyone Who Knows What Love Is (Will Understand)’ sung by Abi (Jessica Brown-Findlay) and the scene of Bing being tortured by the screen in his room and loosing his rag will surely strike a memorable chord. And if you try to explain the premise of the feature, it sounds an awful lot like the present day!

Though perhaps not the most entirely original set of ideas and perhaps a little slow paced for some modern impatient people, this is stylish and though provoking and very much like the titular Black Mirror. A great format for self-contained satirical swipes and I’m eagerly awaiting the third instalment.

4 on 5

3rd Episode airs on Sunday 18th December

Written and Directed by Charlie Brooker. Co-written with his wife Konnie Huq
Starring Daniel Kaluuya and Jessica Brown-Findlay

Well good, they’ve got our safety in mind then, no need to worry, they’re just selling un-returnable guns and ammo in a sports shop!