Tom Philip

Review - Limitless

2011-03-24T10:39:00.000-07:00

Early in the film, a character mentions the popular myth that we only use 20% of our brains (sometimes it’s 8 or 10 or 15 or 50 but never mind that). I immediately noted “Whoever wrote this movie was obviously using less” to be a cool, witty way to open the review. On reflection, that was a little bit 20% of me. Instead I’m going with the informal, self-referential approach. While it’s not all that much more impressive, I’d say it’s a little bit more creative. A little bit more entertaining. Can we agree on around maybe 30% for this, then?

Limitless is a seriously shocking bore. Shocking because its premise should, by all rights, equal at least an entertaining if dumb movie. Magically it is not. Bradley Cooper’s ridiculous magnetism can’t save it and, let’s face it, DeNiro is more of a curse than a blessing this millennium. It squanders its cast and ideas on an unsure plot and wastes its time on silly, underwritten characters. It makes for an extremely frustrating watch, but not necessarily an altogether unenjoyable one.

Cooper is Eddie Mora, an author struggling with his current novel. He’s scatterbrained, unkempt and his apartment is filthy. “My excuse for looking this way?” he narrates, “I’m a writer” (offence TAKEN!) He’s suddenly turned on to an experimental new drug called NZT, which causes the human brain to fire at its 100% capacity (so inaccurate because- ah, who cares?) Overnight, he’s transformed into a cultured, witty, perfect man. At this point I suppose we’re to ask ourselves: What would I do on NZT? Morra has the answer: become a banker.

He. Becomes. A. Banker.

Out of all the scenarios, all the endless possibilities that come with discovering superpowers (really, the movie’s conceit is one step away from a superhero origin story) and we’re suppose to cheer this guy into entering the world of finance? The transition feels forced and irritating, pigeonholing the movie’s vast potential into a Wall Street-style thriller with so little of its sci-fi genre spilling through that it’s easy to forget why we’re meant to care at all.

And so, Limitless drags on, which is rare for such a short film. It drags and drags and drags until a laughably morbid scene in which a child wearing ice skates is used as a weapon. The movie hastens it’s tone but it’s lost me. One way or another I don’t care and oh God I just want this to end!

End it does, and if I were to say that it doesn’t end in a convoluted, unsatisfying manner, in which plot points are resolved with dismissive, expository dialogue and with bizarre pacing compared with the rest of the movie, souring the experience to such an extent that I nearly forget most of the effective action scenes as well as a few clever turns at the beginning, I’d be lying.

Unsuitable for humans 15% and above.

2/5

Review - Adjustment Bureau

2011-03-16T10:15:00.000-07:00

2011 is shaping up to be the year of surprisingly good movies from unexpected places. January’s The Green Hornet was fun, fast and vacuous in all the right places. February’s Paul had a strong cast and director, sure, but no-one was expecting the speed and skill with which it delivered a not only hilarious, but strangely poignant story. That brings us to March, and we’re due another surprise. Enter The Adjustment Bureau.

While Philip K. Dick novels have a fairly good track record with film adaptations so far, (Blade Runner, Minority Report and A Scanner Darkly among the best), The Adjustment Bureau looked like it was coming at a bad time, looking like a strange, undercooked combination of Inception and Richard Kelly’s spectacular misfire The Box.

The Adjustment Bureau’s conceit seems like a breeding ground for flaws and plotholes; Matt Damon’s David Norris, a politician, meets Elise (Emily Blunt) one night. The two share a kiss and part ways, seemingly forever. By chance, he meets with her on a bus several months later, and a romance sparks. Interspersed with this are conversations between men in sharp suits and sharper hats. We discover that Norris was never meant to be on that bus, and he was never meant to see Elise again, according to “The Plan”.

These ‘Men In Suits And Hats’ are known as The Adjustment Bureau (hey!), and they adjust the events when things go off-plan. They can freeze time, move objects with their minds, and make doorways lead to wherever they want. They also have nifty little handbooks that update in real time to show where The Plan is failing, and what needs to be done and when (Maybe if The Plan’s failing so often they should update to iPads?)

The Adjustment Bureau solves a dilemma in the world it creates by not delving too far into it. Our questions immediately posed by the film are answered, although the deeper issues alluded to are ours to ponder on. We find out what gives these strange men their powers, why Norris and Elise should never be together, and why it’s so easy for them to defy The Plan (Neat little trick there, as it gets rid of the age-old ‘If these guys are so powerful how come they mess up so much?’ problem). Still, there’s not enough drive when it comes to the concept. This is by far one of the most interesting films I’ve ever seen, and it was disappointing to only be allowed to view and experience this world for two hours. A TV series based on the movie/film might not be such a bad idea. There are themes and opportunities to be further explored, here.The ending also disappoints. After an impressive third act, the conclusion feels rushed and contrived. Maybe even a little lazy.

But it’s not really this stuff that matters. Where The Adjustment Bureau really shines is in Damon and Blunt, who make an outstanding onscreen pair. The dialogue is sharp, fast and charming, and the characters are extraordinarily well-written for a sci-fi thriller film. It’s the writing and the chemistry between Damon and Blunt that allows us to forget the spotty exposition and questionable logic, and causes us to root and cheer for our heroes, who break down every barrier in their way. John Slattery impresses as Richardson, an upper-level Adjuster who goes about his business with humour and fallibility, despite his mysterious abilities. Here is the second real strength of the film. The Adjusters are always a force to be reckoned with, and their powers certainly make it believable they’ve been controlling things for as long as they have (a monologue establishes they were responsible for the Roman Empire, among many other things). Still, they are unmistakably still beings. They listen to reason, they negotiate, they talk like real people. It’s much easier to understand the laws of this enigmatic race when they’re not being all withholding and mean.

Review: Unknown

2011-03-04T11:27:00.001-08:00

Imagine, for a second, that Bad Boys II is a person. Much like you or I. A living, breathing person with thoughts and feelings, but still who retains the essential characteristics of the awful Michael Bay sequel. Now imagine that our hero, Bad Boys II, one day watches the Liam Neeson thriller Taken in all its overly-violent, ham-fisted glory. Bad Boys II decides it wants to aspire to be a better sequel. It wants to be Taken II (but since Taken II doesn’t exist and you need a reference point in regards to the likely quality/insanity of Taken II, see Crank 2). It wants to be Taken’s Crank 2. But this is a mistake. Not only is Bad Boys II too badly-plotted and stupid to be Taken II, but it’s too boring and lame. Taken was an 18 in England. They can’t compete with that! No, instead Bad Boy’s II, in wanting to become Taken’s Crank 2, has actually become its Die Hard 4.0. It has become Unknown.

I’ve always wanted to write something like that.

Boy oh boy is Unknown bad, though. It’s, like, really genuinely awful.

It was worth a shot. It stood to reason that sending Liam Neeson to Europe to kick ass (that’s about where the plotting seemed to fall apart) was good for another go. What was forgotten about Taken, however, were all the things that made it great: its gratuitous grit and violence; its insanely cool and infallible lead character; its gleeful subscription to its own stupidity. Unknown has none of these really awesome things, instead: its 12A rating means stilted dialogue and action sequences in which the camera moves a lot and people get ‘thumped’; the lead character is whiny and really, really dumb about how he goes about his business; its absolute conviction and seriousness when really everything going on is laughably ridiculous.

Anyway, once we get past the set-up of the film, in which Martin Harris (Neeson) wakes from a coma to discover ANOTHER Martin Harris in his place, he goes ahead and beats people up and exchanges long expository dialogue with a private detective who, with no particular explanation, uncovers a ridiculously complex and supposedly top-secret conspiracy in one afternoon. That’s about all the story we get, interspersed with clunky sexual tension between Neeson and Diane Kruger as Gina, an Eastern-European taxi driver.

Oh, yeah, the main twist of the movie is given away in the trailer. I’m not even kidding. The main twist, on which the entire plot is centered on, the WHOLE IDEA for a film in which a guy who doesn’t know who he is finds out someone else is him (dun dun dunnnnnn) is explained in the 2-minute trailer people can watch for free. You’re better off watching that.

January Jones, whose informed, subtle, humanistic portrayal of the downright despicable Betty Draper in Mad Men, somehow forgets her entire career in acting and gives one of the worst performances I have honestly ever seen in a Hollywood movie. To hell with it, in anything. It’s incredible to me, astounding.

Unknown has achieved something, I imagine, in dragging down what is an inherently interesting premise, ruining every single aspect of the film around it, giving away the ending, and turning what should have been a fun, mindless thriller into the worst film of the year so far. For the love of God, just rent Taken.

1/5

Review - True Grit

2011-02-25T10:13:00.000-08:00

By now, everyone pretty much accepts that The Coen Brothers are just about the greatest filmmakers around. With so many hits and so few misses, they’ve proved that it’s possible to be at a creative peak for years at a time, and they show no signs of disappearing any time soon.

True Grit is the Coen’s most straightforward story in a while. It lacks the nuance and inexhaustible subtext of No Country for Old Men and A Serious Man. This isn’t a bad thing at all, merely an observation. The film follows Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld), a 14-year old girl who hires an alcoholic US Marshal (Jeff Bridges as Rooster Cogburn) to hunt down the man who killed her father in cold blood, and to avenge his death. Steinfeld is an absolute revelation in her first ever film role, showing a proclivity for acting, subtlety and delivery that far outshines many, if not all of her child actor peers. It’s an assured and shockingly strong performance which deserves to be recognised by the Academy* in two week’s time, and very likely will.

The simplicity of the plot is vitally enhanced by the Coen’s dialogue and direction, which sets the film very much in the gritty Old West. Unfamiliar words and phrases, as well as Cogburn’s semi-unintelligible rants, don’t jar the proceedings as much as would be expected. The careful handling of context allows for the alien discourse to become immediately understandable.

Completing the trifecta of main characters is Matt Damon as LaBoeuf, a Texas Ranger. Disapproving of Cogburn’s reckless, take-no-prisoners attitude, he isn’t given much to do in the way of sheer entertainment value, but grounds the film in a more complex and realistic manner, providing reason where there would be none between a drunk and a kid.

Despite the themes and ideas that run through the film, it is nowhere near as heavy as it could have been. In fact, True Grit reveals itself slowly as a fairly light film. Its setting belies its tone, having an inverse effect as that of last year’s A Serious Man, which told the story of a Jewish man struggling with life in the 60s, and slowly expanded into a weighty existential proverb.

The sense of otherworldliness that usually inhabits the Coen’s universe is not present in True Grit, and it means those used to their tricky style might leave feeling a little underfed. There is little subtext and commentary, instead focusing mainly on redemption, justice and bravery. In this light, it’s easier to forgive the omissions, The Coens clearly immersed themselves in the process of old-fashioned storytelling. The kind of storytelling crafted by mercenaries and cowboys in the old west, best enjoyed over a crackling fire in the dead of night.

True Grit is a surprisingly inclusive film. Like its star, Mattie, it is brave, bold and unusually smart. Peel away its tough facade, though, and you’ll find more lightheartedness and vulnerability than you’d expect. This isn’t the Coen’s best, but it was made by the Coens at their best. Extraordinary.

4/5

Top 10 TV shows

2011-02-24T10:12:00.000-08:00

A common misconception is that television is lesser art. While The X Factor and Hollyoaks might want you to believe this, there’s comedy and drama on the small screen that outclasses what’s in the cinema week by week. Offerings from the UK are as sharp and as special as ever while America is seeing one of its best ages of scripted television ever. These are the ten best shows on anywhere right now, all available at the touch of a button (Or in the case of a select few, a legally iffy internet search, not that it’s recommended or condoned in any way. It’s just a way. That I myself have never used. What? Those ones that don’t air in the UK? A friend described them to me over the phone and they sounded really good).

Note: In the instances of American series, the US channel it’s on is presented first, then its UK channel, where available, secondly.

10.    Peep Show (Channel 4)
Now in its seventh series, Peep Show is as funny and as bizarre as ever. The pacing and characters are ever-static but the brilliance is all in the dialogue. David Mitchell and Robert Webb have an extraordinary rapport that, honestly, should be expected, given that they’ve been working together since their University days. Paterson Joseph’s Johnson is as menacing and unstable as ever, proving himself once again as the show’s secret weapon. The situations are mortifying and offensive, with one episode seeing Webb’s Jeremy attempting to woo a girl while her boyfriend’s in a coma. While they’re in his hospital room. It’s the lightest and deftest touches of humanity that the creators, Sam Bain and Jesse Armstrong, give to Mitchell and Webb that brings the show back from an edge it so often flirts with and turns it into one of the most unexpectedly delightful and loveable British comedies ever.

9.    Dexter (Showtime/FX UK)
Dexter’s fifth series was always going to be a little disappointing, given the depraved brilliance of its fourth. Still, it far outshone most crime dramas in the last year. This year Dexter, everyone’s favourite forensics officer/serial killer took on not just one murderer but a whole organised group of ‘em! The show wisely stayed away from more theatrical, enthusiastic villains, which would have had no hope of standing up to last year’s Trinity Killer (Yes, I’m harping on about series four but it really was extraordinary) and also ratcheted down the pace and twists, which has always been Dexter’s achilles heel. Just how much longer can he go on working for the police and killing people before he gets caught?

8.    30 Rock (NBC/Comedy Central)
It’s quite possibly the most scientifically perfect sitcom on television right now. The jokes seem to come from careful, considered engineering and deceptively intricate plots, usually 4 at a time, weave in and out of one another, coming to a head 22 minutes later. With such relentless humour and such ambitious storylines, it is to be expected that something suffers, and as wonderfully built as 30 Rock is, it’s a robot. Perfectly operational, but ultimately heartless. If you want sincere romance, character development or redemption, look elsewhere. That said, 30 Rock still delivers the most consistently brilliant comedy with characters that make it achingly hard not to love, even if they don’t often return the favour.

7.    Misfits (E4)
Misfits is so obviously stilted and flawed dramatically, and that’s what I love the most about it. Be it the unimaginative, pseudo-edgy uses of the baddies, or the fact there are only two likeable or compelling characters in the entire cast (That was admittedly bumped up to three this year with the arrival of the hilarious sociopathic social worker), Misfits represents British television at its silliest. Regardless, it’s very funny and makes good use of its lead, Robert Sheehan, who quickly established himself as the best part of an uneven but curiously satisfying show.

6. The Thick Of It (BBC)
It took four years for The Thick Of It’s third series to appear, the time was filled with special episodes and a film. The Thick of It is, at first glance, the very antithesis of comedy. Everyone’s shallow and mean, no-one reacts positively to anything. The jokes aren’t jokes per se, but are remarks. Snaps at whatever’s going on. It’s the most realistic show in years in the most serious and somehow least serious way possible. It doesn’t try to jazz up real life because, yes, sometimes life really is this terrible and funny.

5.    Mad Men (AMC/BBC)
In a move that will shock approximately zero people in the ENTIRE world, Mad Men appears in this list of the best television. Mad Men had its work cut out for it in 2010, having won the Emmy for Best Drama Series three years running and essentially rebooting the show at the end of Series 3, it had a lot to prove, and boy, did it prove. Mad Men’s ability to balance light and dark every week is still astounding. Its roster of detailed and flawed characters is expanded and improved upon. Nothing in Mad Men can be predicted or solved using acquired Dramatic knowledge. It is a show that defies the rule “Artistic, subtle drama has to be boring.” Instead conjuring twists and surprises out of thin air and ending Series Four on a bombshell so huge and so curious that the chances of us not HAVING to watch its continuation this year are as nonexistent as HBO’s glossy and tedious Boardwalk Empire (Desperately vying for an Emmy this year)’s claims that it’s not just a Mad Men clone set in the 20’s.

4.    Parks and Recreation (NBC)
NBC’s Thursday Night Lineup is the holy grail of television comedy. Three of its four flagship laughers appear on this list, one of them at the top spot. The only one missing is The Office, now in its SEVENTH Series, a mere shell of its former glory (and its British parent, but that this stage comparisons between the two are completely redundant). Parks and Recreation is more a spiritual successor to The Office (UK) than The Office (US) ever was. The writing is blazingly fast, astoundingly clever and just weird enough to make most of the situations in the show believable. The sheer strength of its ensemble cast is unmatched, its regular performers read like a who’s who of American Comedic Excellence. For those disappointed in The Office’s more recent offerings, or frustrated with its existence in the first place, Parks and Recreation is the show you’ve been waiting for.

3.    Louie (FX)
Louie is exactly the sort of show that is miraculous in its existence in the first place. No sane TV executive should ever finance a project like this, but I’m glad someone, somewhere did. Louie is a semi-autobiographical comedy created, written by, directed by and starring Louis CK, a New York stand-up comedian. The format is so vague and surreal, one episode is spent in near-silence as Louie travels on a plane to perform a show in the deep South. Another episode does away with any and all expectations of comedy and flashbacks to Louie’s education at a strict catholic school, focusing entirely on Louie learning of the crucifixion and the depression and guilt he experiences from that. One episode features a 7-minute discussion between Louie and several other comedians, one of them gay, about the use of the word “faggot” in their acts (One of the most important scenes in television, Louis CK himself uploaded this to his own youtube channel and it was taken down for copyright violation, but it’s out there somewhere). The poignant, touching and genius breaks that the otherwise hilarious, irreverent show takes serves to highlight how brave and special Louie really is.

2.    Breaking Bad (AMC/Five USA)
Were it not for Breaking Bad’s life-changing second series, it would easily be at the top spot of this list. However, we were spoiled last year with Series Two, and Series Three had absolutely no hope of matching or outdoing it this year. Wisely, the show took a different direction, breaking its focus on the dilemmas and consequences of Walter White, the High-School-Teacher-Turned-Cancer-Patient-Turned-Meth-Manufacturer and his increasingly violent and immoral behavior and instead decided to embrace it, quickening the pace and dialing up the action. It’s possibly the most intense, avant-garde show on TV right now, never shying away from dropping its characters into grim, shocking situations. Breaking Bad is the show for people that think they’ve seen the best drama series ever in The Sopranos, The Wire, Mad Men. They haven’t seen anything yet.

1.    Community (NBC/Viva)
Community is, simply, the best. It premiered last year to warm enthusiasm, it was praised for being the first candid, wacky sitcom to make an audience care for its characters in a long time. Then came the Series One episode Modern Warfare, and with it, a new era. Modern Warfare was an episode that did away with the regular conceit of the show (A group of ragtag misfits form a study group together at a surreal community college, aw) and instead gave us 22 minutes of an action-movie parody, revolving around a college-wide paintball fight. For a show known for its self-awareness (Character Abed frequently relates what’s happening on the show to other shows that he’s (and we’ve) seen), it outdid itself. Then came Season Two. Several episodes in, an Apollo 13 parody episode was aired, seeing the gang trapped in a space flight-simulator. A few episodes after that, a Halloween horror-movie episode. A “bottle episode” (A take on the one-room-thriller genre). A Christmas stop-motion episode. A Mockumentary episode. It became clear that this wasn’t Community pandering to the audience that had responded so well to Modern Warfare, this was what the show had evolved into. Every week, something new became possible, and its flawless cast (Newcomer Donald Glover and veteran Chevy Chase are particular standouts) had to keep up, shaping their characters and keeping them consistent in the wake of frequent reality-bending situations. Community is, on paper, a show that does not belong on mainstream television, nor does it belong ahead of nine other incredible examples of television to be number one. And, somehow, it just is. It just happened.

Review - Black Swan

2011-01-24T11:17:00.000-08:00

Natalie Portman’s kind of an OK actress. This is a sentence that I could have presented without much contention (unless I was speaking to Natalie Portman’s parents) several months ago. Now it’s a bare-faced lie.

A 29 year-old Harvard Graduate who made her feature film debut at just 13, studios will likely be adding ‘Academy Award Winner’ to her name in just a few short months. Natalie Portman is finally better-than-OK.

It’s in Black Swan that Portman has found her voice. A pitch-black psychological melodramatic horror film about ballet (Try pitching THAT when you’re not Darren Aronofsky), it’s a taxing and disturbing watch, and could easily play out much less sincere and much more humourous were it not for Portman’s assured and near-perfect performance.

Portman is Nina Sayers, a young New York ballet dancer. She lives with her mum (Barbara Hershey, easily one of the best and creepiest performances ever to be committed to film) and finds time only to practice ballet and not eat much. When she wins the role of the Swan Queen in her company’s upcoming production of Swan Lake, she’s urged by her director (Vincent Cassel) to discover her dark side, in order to convincingly play the Black Swan also.

Predictably, complications arise, mostly in the form of Lily (Mila Kunis), another dancer seemingly much more in tune with the Black Swan philosophy. In Lily, Nina finds an access to hard dark side, which turns out to be a little more powerful than she’d like.

The greatest thing about Black Swan is the reception its received despite being a bold, loud piece of genre filmmaking. While The King’s Speech is an age-old Oscar formula, good horror has never really found its way into distinct praise.

Black Swan’s got overkill by the shedload. Bones are cracked, skin is peeled and faces are stabbed as Nina descends into madness. Then, of course, there’s the much talked about sex scene.

The horrible feeling of foreboding and dread that Aronofsky manages to conjure up means that only the most depraved of souls could find the aforementioned scene anything other than acutely uncomfortable.

Aronofsky has stated he feels Black Swan is a companion piece to his 2008 masterpiece The Wrestler, drawing comparisons between each performer’s willingness to sacrifice their lives and themselves in order to find comfort on their professions.

There are certainly similarities to be had, Aronofsky once again employs his usage of handheld, over-the-shoulder camerawork. What Nina sees, we see, what disorients her disorients us, which is needed in a film about a plunge into insanity.

Where The Wrestler was restrained and heartbreaking, though, Black Swan is not. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but in terms of pure emotional grief and empathetic connection, The Wrestler will still resonate stronger.

Black Swan represents a brave new direction for Aronofsky, who will next be taking one of the most bizarre career paths possible by directing the sequel to the 2009 summer disaster X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

It also represents a brave new direction for Portman, whose probable Oscar glory will assure that she’ll never have to pretend that it wasn’t her in the Star Wars prequels ever again. Most importantly, though, Black Swan represents a brave new direction for film, and for what an audience is willing to let happen to them for the sake of art, and I think that’s something we can all get behind.

5/5

Golden Globes Recap

2011-01-22T11:13:00.000-08:00

The 2011 Golden Globes will be remembered for the controversy surrounding Ricky Gervais’ hosting duties, and whether or not he went too far and humiliated those the Hollywood Foreign Press Association had intended to celebrate.

It was too late for that; the HFPA this year made a farce of their own ceremony that far outdid Ricky’s jabs.

The Golden Globes have become something of an in-joke to the public. While the Oscars and BAFTAs market their ceremonies as just that, the HFPA refer to the Golden Globes as a “party”, perhaps to save face in light of nominating a film like The Tourist for Best Musical Or Comedy.

It is in nomination selections like this that the offense should be taken, not in Gervais’ conduct.
The Tourist is neither a musical nor a comedy, why was it nominated? Gervais, among others, suggests it’s because the HFPA wanted to get invites out to Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie.

The tragedy is that this is the most plausible scenario. It also reveals a greater disrespect for the awards themselves, essentially reducing the “Best Comedy Or Musical” category to that of a secondary prize, the terms and prerequisites of which can be fitted to suit the organiser’s agenda.

The five films nominated in this category were Alice In Wonderland, The Kids Are All Right, Burlesque, The Tourist, Red. I would argue myself that none of these films represent the best of musical or comedy film in 2010. But that’s subjective.

What isn’t is the genre that two of these films definitely subscribe to, Alice In Wonderland had jokes but is it a comedy? I’ve always felt that comedy as a genre is not given proper regard when it comes to recognition or awards.

Comedy has the power to subvert and enlighten as well as cheaply entertain, and it’s time the HFPA steps up and dissolves the category altogether if they can’t maintain integrity.

The awards themselves were distributed without much occasion or surprise. Christian Bale provided a high point when he was named Best Supporting Actor for his role in The Fighter.

He appeared unkempt and frantic, delivering a messy speech long after the “wrap it up” music had started, eventually being cut off by the sound system itself. Robert DeNiro caused some polite discomfort (the prevalent theme throughout the evening) amongst the guests with an unashamedly honest and funny speech after picking up his lifetime achievement award, proving you don’t have to be sincere or modest to be great.

Despite my severe aversion to all things Glee, Chris Colfer’s acceptance speech for “Best Supporting Actor In a TV Series” was pleasant and warming, and it was heartening to see Jane Lynch, a woman who has worked hard and been funny for many years, pick up the supporting actress award for the aforementioned show as well.

It was all very well and good until Glee also picked up the Comedy Or Musical TV Show award, a category that was as white bread and as irrelevant as its film counterpart.

The HFPA failed to recognise wonderful comedy this year, such as the groundbreaking, pitch-perfect Louie or the Breakfast Club¬-esque, experimental sitcom Community.

In other undeserving awards news (Deserving awards are no fun to write/read about), Boardwalk Empire picked up Best TV Series – Drama despite being overstuffed and glossy with no real intrigue or humanity. Mad Men and Breaking Bad both had incredible runs in 2010, it’s about time the latter received the distinction it deserves as one of the darkest, bravest, most exciting shows ever.

The Social Network’s sweep (Best Original Score, Best Screenplay, Best Director, Best Film) bodes well for the Oscars, alongside competing frontrunner The King’s Speech it definitely has the edge in terms of pure entertainment as well as social relevance.

At best, The Golden Globes are stepping stones, indicators towards future BAFTA or Oscar glory for certain films. At worst, they are the HFPA’s expensive way of declaring their importance and their power, and an invitation for certain actors to do the same. Let’s lighten up, though. It’s just a party, after all.

Review - 127 Hours

2011-01-18T08:20:00.000-08:00

Danny Boyle is the kind of filmmaker that wants you to think “Aw, that’s sweet. Wait, what?” After the harrowing but ultimately satisfying Slumdog Millionaire, which won just about any award going in the ‘08/’09 awards race, Boyle quickly started his next project, 127 Hours. A true story about all-round adventurer Aron Ralston and the days he spent in a remote canyon, his arm pinned underneath a rock. No chance of escape, no chance of rescue, no chance of surviving more than a few days.

James Franco is Aron Ralston, delivering arguable his finest performance to date. Franco’s seen a steady stream of high-profile work for nearly a decade now, but has still yet to hit big. After this, it seems universal recognition and appreciation is right around the corner. The days Ralston spends trapped are lonely, depressing and upsetting, and it’s Franco’s responsibility to not only keep our interest for most of the film, but to make us care. Ralston’s circumstances leading up to the accident are done away with in all of 15 minutes. People know what this film is about, and they want to get right to it.

It’s a testament to this piece, that it can still shock and delight even though 95% of people going in will know the story. There are no spoilers to be wary of, we know just how Ralston eventually escapes, and Boyle knows we know, teasing us as he packs for his trip, his all-purpose penknife lying just out of reach, so he opts to leave it. Just before his fall, we’re waking with Ralston, winding through narrow passageways of stunning red rock as he moves his hand and fingers over their surface – taking it all in.

The direction of 127 Hours is nothing short of masterful; it’s Boyle’s most disciplined and beautiful work yet. The camera stays close on Franco, even when he’s not trapped. It doesn’t feel so much like a film as it does the life of Aron Ralston, presented by a cameraman who was there for the whole thing. Of course, if there was a cameraman he’d have probably helped… Ralston himself also carries a camera. He records messages for his family for when his body is found, he views snippets of his past life, now painfully out of reach forever. Whatever happens in that hole, he’s not coming out of it unscathed. Every second spent down there is another second towards what we all know is coming next.

It’s this anticipation that Boyle plays on, rather than the suspense of not knowing. When Ralston’s arm finally comes off it’s as painful for us as it is for him. The imagery is savage and realistic, the sound is brutal and relentless. It’s a sensory overload, but as the knife goes in for the last time, and Ralston breaks free, we breathe not only a sigh of relief at the end of the ordeal, but we breathe a sigh of relief at his freedom.

As gut-wrenching as the scenes in the canyon are, they are bearable. Boyle further alleviates the grief ever now and again by taking us in flashbacks to moments in Ralston’s life. Important memories, painful regrets. It’s these intermissions that play out as aggravating rather than therapeutic or enlightening. Events are shown quickly, or just artfully alluded to. They’re ghosts of memories that aren’t substantial enough to connect with, but not mysterious enough for us to feel intrigued. With just a little more focus in these cutscenes, and the transitions between them and the canyon, a perfect multi-layered story could have been developed.

As it stands, though, 127 Hours is a masterpiece. Boyle won’t see much recognition this year after Slumdog’s storm last year, it’s someone else’s time. Regardless, this is an incredible practice in both direction and acting, it’s a beautiful film.

4 stars.

The Top 10 of 2010

2011-01-07T08:16:00.000-08:00

2010 was a mixed bag for film releases, from The Hurt Locker’s deserving Oscar sweep (over Avatar, at least) to the 2010 Blockbuster Season, the worst in recent history, there was a lot to love and hate this year. Top 10 lists are designed to focus on the positive, the absolute BEST films from the last 12 months. Let’s begin.

(Notably absent are many top contenders for the 2011 Oscar race; Somewhere, The Fighter, True Grit, 127 Hours, The King’s Speech… because they are yet to be screened within the UK.)

10. Inception

Oh, what fools we were to ever doubt Chris Nolan’s box-office ability. Before it was seen, Inception felt like a huge gamble. Here was a director, hot on the heels of The Dark Knight, not only a huge personal success but also one of the biggest successes in the history of cinema, selling a big budget summer film that was going to make people THINK?! Of course, concerns from the studio and concerns from the general public dissipated almost immediately. Inception is a clever, cool, exciting film. While Nolan’s eyes were maybe a little too big for his stomach when it came to just how intricate his story was, it was an ambitious and fearless endeavor, and it made a great film. 4/5

9. Easy A

On paper, it’s another flimsy high school movie about an outcast girl in a difficult part of her life. In reality, it’s one of the smartest and most delightful comedy films in years. Emma Stone proves here she’s ready and able to carry a deceptively heavy plot, as well as tireless, razor-sharp dialogue. Marc Webb’s Spider-Man reboot will be seen as her big break, but it’s hard to imagine her role as Gwen Stacey will be nearly as affecting and empowering as it is in Easy A. 4/5

8. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

It was one of the warmest, funniest stories ever told in print, adapted for the screen by Edgar Wright arguably the greatest living comedy director today, starring an exhaustive ensemble of just about the coolest under-30 working actors today. And yet, as we speak, SPvTW still hasn’t made back its budget, not even close. While the initial concept: “Guy meets girl. Guy falls in love. Girl has seven evil ex-boyfriends that need to be defeated in order for them to be together” may have felt jarring and overwhelming to a mainstream audience, it was really a tale that could have worked for anybody, given half a chance. Many predict a life for this film long after its financial woes are forgotten, and I’m inclined to agree. 4/5

7. How To Train Your Dragon

Traditionally, Dreamworks animation outings have always seemed a little sub-par and derivative of their cooler, nicer rival, Pixar. That changed this year with the release of HTTYD. It was an all-round triumph, smart, sweet, funny and stunning. The fast, exhilarating plot far outshone the over-polished and middle-of-the-road Toy Story 3. 2010 was the year in which Hiccup and Toothless, the two most unlikely of heroes (just look at those names) took the world by surprise and storm, and became the stars of the best animated movie of the year. 5/5

6. The Brothers Bloom

Just two films into his career, Rian Johnson is convincing many that he may just be the next big filmmaker. Following the outstanding Brick came The Brothers Bloom. A light, funny, hyper-stylised con man movie that, were it not for the Lamborghini that Rachel Weisz’ fantastic character drives, would have you believe it’s set in the 1930s. Narrow suits and steam locomotives abound, Adam Brody and 2010 actor of the year (by my own estimations) Mark Ruffalo delighted as the brothers. Keep an eye out for Johnson in the future, but for now enjoy both his near-masterpieces. 5/5

5. I’m Still Here

When Joaquin Phoenix appeared on Letterman in 2008, people weren’t quite sure what to think. For one of the greatest actors in the world to suddenly quit acting and become a rapper, forgoing any kind of announcement or explanation, was worrying. More worrying was Phoenix’s behaviour. Then came I’m Still Here and along with it the revelation that Phoenix’s meltdown had been faked for the mockumentary. It bothered some, enraged others. Regardless, as a piece of art, I’m Still Here excels. It is a beautiful, sad, thoughtful film that most definitely comes from a consciousness, even if it wasn’t playing out that exact way. After watching it, I was less convinced than ever of the hoax. Incredible. 5.5

4. Black Swan

This review was postponed by an entire week in order for Black Swan to be seen and have a chance to be placed in this, the most highly regarded recap list of the year (nope). Still, it was entirely justified, as Black Swan became not only of my favourite movies of the year, but possibly one of my favourites of all-time. In terms of rewatchability and potential analysis, it is unrivalled. Natalie Portman gives the performance of a (let’s face it, so far underwhelming) lifetime, as Aronofsky plays the twisted, sadistic puppet master to this pitch-black psychological horror. Watching it is in itself an ordeal. The images will disturb and resonate, but Black Swan is so much more than scares. It’s the ideas, the thoughts that will haunt you long after the credits roll.

3. The Social Network

The Social Network ended up working better on levels people hadn’t really anticipated. What was supposed to be a thoughtful, harrowing drama about a young man corrupted by his own big dreams was quickly discovered as more of a razor-sharp comedy about a guy who really only saw the big picture, but that didn’t make him a baddie. As easy as it could have been to hate Mark Zuckerberg, Jesse Eisenberg, surely a frontrunner for all kinds of awards recognition come 2011, ensures empathy is always kept, that Mark always remains human; fallible, hungry, young. The supporting cast is fleshed out by inspiring turns from Armie Hammer as the surprisingly funny ‘Winklevi’, Spider-Man-to-be Andrew Garfield as Eduardo Saverin, Zuckerberg’s partner in what-may-or-may-not-be-crime-it’s-never-100%-been-decided. Rooney Mara, who plays a brief but brilliant part as Zuckerberg’s first love will next be seen starring in Director David Fincher’s next job: an English Language remake of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. For a film about disgustingly young, attractive, successful people, the casting seems entirely appropriate.

2. Shutter Island

Perhaps the most genuinely flawed on this entire list, those flaws don’t stop Shutter Island being the second most enjoyable experience I’ve had from a film all year. The soundtrack howled mercilessly, beating us over the head with “THIS IS A SCARY BIT, YOU’RE MEANT TO BE SCARED RIGHT NOW” style-subtlety. The scares themselves were mostly hollow. The twists and revelations felt cheap and tired. Despite all this, Shutter Island managed to thrill, something that far too many “thrillers” actually succeed in doing. Leonardo DiCaprio is a revelation again, delivering, arguably, one of his finest performances. Like Black Swan, there is delight as well as disturbance to be found in a scary story of a mind unraveling

1. The American

Anton Corbijn says he will only make three films. His first was Control, a deep and melancholy biopic of Joy Division’s frontman Ian Curtis. His second is The American. A slow, (almost) silent and stunning film that fits as many impossible, worldly themes into as few words as it can. The American has already been reviewed on this site, so any further exposure would only be repetition. Many will not agree with this, but The American is 2010’s finest film

Notable Mentions

127 Hours, Winter’s Bone, The Other Guys, MacGruber, Kick-Ass, Machete, Never Let Me Go, Four Lions, She’s Out Of My League, Exit Through The Gift Shop, Let Me In, I Love You Phillip Morris, Monsters

Review - Machete

2010-11-25T07:42:00.001-08:00

Machete is without a doubt one of the most perfect movies ever made.

That’s not to say it is among the best, and it certainly will not be appearing on many top 10 lists at the end of the year; the acting is hammy, the dialogue even more so. The characters are one-dimensional and across-the-board morally abhorrent. The action is fast, confusing and seriously, seriously violent. On paper, it’s a disaster. In the hands of Robert Rodriguez, it’s a masterwork.

Rodriguez, best known for his unapologetically unconventional, frenzied approach to filmmaking has directed such films as Sin City, Death Proof and From Dusk Till Dawn as well as, er, the hugely successful Spy Kids series. This is a man who makes the films he wants and not the films people tell him to. His hyper-stylistic approach as well as his penchant for self-aware humour is what saves Machete from becoming another tasteless, heartless exercise all too often seen in modern action films. What makes Machete one of the most perfect films ever is the execution of its ideas and ambitions. It doesn’t reach for anything lofty or intellectual. It knows its limits, it stays within its comfort zone, and then it goes nuts in it.

Machete stars Danny Trejo as the titular character. Trejo has in fact played this part before, and keen-eyed moviegoers will recognise the character as Isador “Machete” Cortez from Rodriguez’ Sky Kids trilogy. Although, he never cut off a guy’s head in Spy Kids. It probably wouldn’t have gone down so well. This time, though, Machete’s out for blood, and within the first minute of the movie he does in fact liberate an enemy of his head in one of the most graphic and ceremonious ways imaginable. When he’s not dispatching of the many faceless goons (there are many) sent his way during the film’s running time, he’s plotting against Senator McLaughlin (Robert DeNiro. I know!), a bigoted Texan senator hell-bent on getting as many Mexicans as he can back across the border. One thing leads to another and- hey, why are we talking about the plot. Boring!

It’s the madness of Machete that makes it an absolute must-see. A comprehendible plot is just a bonus on top of the ridiculous situations and genuinely, extremely funny gags throughout. It’s the immaculately placed humour that stops the plot from being too conventional, and it’s the same humour that stops the violence becoming too much. In one instance, Machete slices open an opponent’s stomach, crashes through the window behind him and abseils to the floor below using the unlucky victim’s intestines as a rappel rope. “There is something terribly wrong with this!” you think, until you realise you’re laughing and have been for some time.

With the utterly reprehensible Saw series now a thing of the past, Machete is the perfect way to herald a new era in expository violent film. It’s loud, crass, and extremely self-aware. That’s more like it.

4/5

Review - The American

2010-11-25T07:40:00.001-08:00

It’s funny how your favourite films always seem to sneak up on you. I anticipated Inception like everybody else this year, I counted down the days until Avatar last year, but the absolute best films I see, the ones I fall in love with, are the ones I’m not at all prepared for. This happened in 2008 with the incredible In Bruges, it happened last year with the Coen Brother’s near-masterpiece A Serious Man, and it happened this year with The American.

The American is one of those rare films in which barely anything happens, and yet you’re transfixed and excited throughout. George Clooney plays Jack, an assassin on the run from some faceless yet dangerous Swedes. He takes to the Italian countryside to hide. He’s contacted by his boss, who asks him to perform one last job: build a gun for Mathilde (Thelka Reuten).

Like any movie of this kind, the entire piece relies on the performance of its leading actor, and Clooney doesn’t disappoint. Jack is a quiet, restrained and yet seriously tortured soul. His paranoia is profound and extreme, in one scene he sleeps with an open book in his hand, the book falls, landing on the floor. Immediately Jack leaps up with his gun, pointing it in the direction of the noise. It’s at this point we realise exactly what we’re dealing with in Jack, and also what Jack may be dealing with. The film draws us to discover what Jack is, rather than who he is. Instead of a backstory we are given him as he is now, and every action he takes within the film is an action that helps to understand him better.

The location, a beautiful Italian mountain village, belies the bleak tone of the film. Every scene is filled to the brim with tension and suspense. The audience, like Jack, begins to suspect just about everyone, begins seeing danger where there is none. It’s impossible to relax, especially during a particular scene in which jack demonstrates his gun to Mathilde. She stands at the bottom of a hill, next to the target he’s to hit. He’s working for her. With her, even. We have no reason to expect him to shoot her. Why do we feel like he will? It’s a testament to director Anton Corbijn, who makes us feel the danger and the tension, however irrational we know it to be.

The American is a beautiful film. It gives just a glimpse into the life of Jack, and forces his solitude and crippling fear onto us. While the movie itself doesn’t ask any big questions, you just might after seeing it.

5/5

Review - Harry Potter 7

2010-11-25T07:37:00.001-08:00

The Harry Potter film franchise deserves a lot of respect; in this age of remakes, reboots and reimagining’s, it’s hard to believe a series can hold on to the same actors and canon for eight whole movies which span an entire decade. Spider-Man only lasted for three films before it was refreshed, The Fantastic Four had just two movies, but a new version is in production already. While the prospect of new takes on familiar and great characters is an exciting one, it reflects also on the cynical and repetitive Hollywood system. Disregarding all other aspects, the Harry Potter films have succeeded in keeping an excellent consistency throughout, and that is something to be genuinely grateful for.

This installment is the much-anticipated seventh, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1. Quite the mouthful, and many have taken to referring to it as “Harry Potter 7a”. The film is based on roughly the first half of Rowling’s final Harry Potter book, with the second half due for release in July 2011 (In 3D!). A cynical observer might see the splitting of the final story to be nothing more than one last grab at the fan base’s pockets, but it’s much nicer to imagine that those involved were just heavily invested in giving the loyal followers a faithful, detailed last hurrah. The truth lies probably somewhere in between.

Harry Potter 7a sees our titular hero beginning his final quest, the quest to defeat Voldemort once and for all. With Harry not returning to Hogwarts, and the newly-introduced plotline involving the horcruxes (Voldemort’s soul is split into seven pieces, they have to find these pieces and destroy them) this is more an adventure movie than it ever was before, with most of our time being spent in the wilderness listening to either Harry, Ron or Hermione talk about something. This is the first major flaw of the film: the characters are just not that interesting. There was a reason for this in the earlier films, instead of in-depth character studies and growth, the story and inventions were taking up most of the film’s precious time. Would you rather hear about Hermione’s home life or what in the world a Hippogriff is? That’s what I thought. Away from the whimsy and wonder of Hogwarts, though, it’s hard not to feel a little… bored at times.

The film also suffers due to its very nature, not only is it based upon a much more detailed series of books but there is a second part to it 8 months away. Every now and again an unfamiliar name is mentioned, or an unfamiliar object is alluded to. Are we supposed to know what they’re talking about? Was it mentioned before in one of the previous films? Are we meant to be pondering on this so it can be revealed in Part 2? The audience is pulled both forward and back every time there’s an obscure reference. It’s distracting and doesn’t help the film at all.

Despite these problems, Harry Potter 7a is a good film. There’s enough magic and excitement to keep the core fans happy, while also drawing in new fans, but there’s also a much more pronounced darkness than there ever was before, a real sense of dread. The tone throughout is masterfully handled, the film is funny, exhilarating, upsetting, or terrifying when it wants to be. The cast, as always, is a veritable who’s who of established and wonderful British actors, Helena Bonham-Carter once again steals the show as the manic, psychotic Bellatrix Lestrange, who has far more ferocity and menace than the over-relaxed Voldemort.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 is a worthy entry into a great film series. The darkness and seriousness of the film prevents it from being the most enjoyable, but it’s certainly the most ambitious. Let’s hope all the problems the film has get ironed out in the next decade’s reboot.

3/5

Review - Due Date

2010-11-15T09:51:00.000-08:00

Due Date has an uphill battle ahead of it. Directed by Todd Phillips, hot on the heels of last year’s astoundingly successful The Hangover, which not only won the Golden Globe for best Comedy or Musical but is also the highest-grossing R-rated comedy of all time. As if that wasn’t enough, the film’s stars Zack Galifianakis and Robert Downey Jr., both on familiar terms with enormous recent success. It was clear that expectations would be mercilessly high and that comparisons between the two films would be inevitable.

Due Date is an OK movie. It’s, essentially, a retelling of the John Hughes classic Planes, Trains and Automobiles (Which is one of my all-time favourite films) in that an arrogant, successful, antisocial individual (Downey as Peter Highman) finds himself without the means to travel cross-country to his family in time for a major event. What was Thanksgiving in Hughes’ classic is replaced here with the birth of a son. With no other options, he throws himself at the kindness of an outgoing, bizarre but good-natured man (Galifianakis as Ethan Tremblay). It’s a simple but effective plot in theory, and allows for some good comedy and some good scenes of emotion. Sadly, the jokes aren’t as good as The Hangover’s and the heart isn’t nearly as big as Planes, Trains’.

The biggest failing comes, sadly, from Downey’s character. It’s no fault of the actor’s (who is, as always, tremendous) but Peter Highman is at worst a mean and superficial creation and at best, snarky and humourless. Efforts are periodically made to humanize and sympathise Hymen and they sometimes work, sometimes fail. Galifianakis suffers no such limitations at the hands of the uneven script. Ethan Tremblay is a delightfully enthusiastic man-child, in the end responsible for nearly every genuine laugh.

On the laughs, there are a good few, though the script tries too hard and ultimately fails to draw humour from several ridiculous and uninteresting secondary characters. Luckily, there’s barely a moment in the film in which the main pair aren’t side-by-side, and this is when Due Date is at its best. The scenes in which Galifianakis and Downey drive cross-country, pontificating on the insane and arguing over the inconsequential offer a genuine warmth and delight. To inject an example joke or two into this paragraph would be to ruin the essence and the point of these scenes. It’s light, fun, wholesome entertainment and it’s much needed more often in this, the new golden age of the adult comedy.

Inevitably, though, the film takes dark turns in the third act, and things fall apart not just for our intrepid protagonists but for the entire film, and the enjoyment the audience has been so keenly drawing from the piece so far. The twist (although the word is used lightly here) not only pushes one of the two too far in terms of their out-of-character reaction but also ruins much of the retrospective admiration the audience has had for the other throughout most of the film. After that, it’s hard for things to pick up properly again. A rushed but nonetheless amusing conclusion to the tale does well to restore some of the charm that had been derailed but ultimately isn’t enough to distract from the bad taste left after the credits start rolling.

Jackass 3D

2010-11-08T08:12:00.000-08:00

Jackass 3D is either the toughest or the easiest sell in the world, depending on who you’re talking to. Everyone’s familiar with the concept of the Jackass model, which started as a TV show and then moved into feature-length affairs (though the format remained exactly the same); a group of brave young men endanger their dignity, chances of reproduction and, more often than not, lives, for the sake of comedy.

A review of the Jackass 3D itself is almost redundant. I thoroughly enjoyed the film. Forsaking empathy and basic taste for 90 minutes is easier than you’d think. It wasn’t so much the payoff to these stunts I found to be rewarding and enjoyable (the payoff is almost always someone farting/pooing/vomiting) but the concept of the stunts themselves, and the sheer planning and determination that obviously went in to them. For instance, it’s hard not to admire a group of professionals who fund and build a bungee jump in which the participant, rather than being tied to a cord at the ankles, will instead be strapped into a full portaloo. It’s hard not to admire the elegant simplicity of “Pin The Tail On The Donkey” in which the donkey is genuine and none too pleased about being approached by a blindfolded man brandishing a sharp object.

To go on describing the stunts would be to spoil the fun of the film. With a concept like Jackass, you know what you’re letting yourself in for when you buy a ticket (at 3D prices, no less). Speaking as an unenthusiastic observer of the 3D phenomenon, I can’t say (however much I want to) that the 3D is warranted here. At the very least, the movie was shot in 3D, which puts it above most of the features being brought out by the major studios these days. However, it doesn’t seem like much actual consideration was put into the stunts on how best to utilize this gimmick (and it is a gimmick). Instead, the 3D is barely exploited, and the stunts remain as inventive in 2D, one would imagine.

Jackass 3D succeeds in making schadenfreude an enjoyable spectator sport, it includes us in the world and makes you feel as if you’re standing among the howling masses as one of their own is abused in whatever fashion has been prepared that day. These guys aren’t just sleazy losers whose idea of a good time is being creatively punished, they’re professional comedians, inventors, artists. Naysayers will always bemoan the tastelessness and the bone-headedness of what appears onscreen in this all-to-brief study of he human condition under stress (OK, maybe I’m getting a little carried away with that one). Anything can be funny, nothing is off-limits and the guys of Jackass are a testament to this.

3/5

Review - Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps

2010-10-25T09:32:00.001-07:00

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps is the absolute worst kind of sequel for three reasons, one: It’s riding on the coattails of its admittedly great predecessor, inflated with its own importance even though the first film was released a solid 23 years ago. Two: It introduces new characters (a necessity when there’s been as long a gap between the films) utterly devoid of any stake in the world established in the first film that are dull and bloodless. Three: It has a horrible title.

It’s directed by Oliver Stone, who has recently taken to making larger, longer, self-indulgent affairs since his heyday in the late 80s. Wall Street 2 (As it shall henceforth be referred to as) shows no signs of breaking this bad streak. For the duration of the merciless 2-hour running time, the viewer is subjected to grey, vague financial discussions held by characters that are not introduced. The grey is somewhat attributed to the suits worn by these characters, but nonetheless reflected in the actors’ portrayals of them at the hands of an uninspiring, cliché-ridden script. At one point a founder of a company gets self-righteous and upset when he’s ousted by a younger man, he complains and laments about how he deserves better then this after all this time. It’s lazy and obvious, and it happens again and again between the various speedy plots.

The script is also to blame for the jarring tonal switches that take place in the film. At certain points it’s hard to know whether you’re required to laugh, gasp or roll your eyes at any given line. It’s littered with little details and quips that are perhaps intended to be ironic but within the serious framing of the narrative feel extremely tacky. More important are the analogies and philosophies spouted by the various main roles every now and again. Near the beginning, Gordon Gekko compares money to a jealous and evil woman, saying that she’s a “bitch that never sleeps”. There’s the obligatory “work in the nonsensical title of the film into the dialogue so it appears to make more sense” move. This is a film less concerned with the story it wants to tell and more concerned with sounding as clever and as insightful as possible. Analogies are easy, look: Books are like mugs; it’s what you fill them with that make them special. A little rough around the edges, yes, but in my defense I just decided to compare the first two things I could see on my desk.

It’s not all bad news, though. Josh Brolin and Michael Douglas do what they can with what’s given to them and deliver some wonderful acting, warring between themselves but very rarely directly. Indeed, the film is at its best when it casts aside its messages and morals and heavy-handed symbolisms and just lets the characters fight it out. Shia Labeouf, who only seems to pick roles based on whether or not he gets to ride a motorbike in the film, fares better than expected also. He’s written into a corner in the final act, though, and he takes an unnecessary and unwelcome turn into a darker being. Indeed, it’s only the British Carey Mulligan, last year nominated for an Oscar, who struggles in a main role. She’s lumbered with a boring and pious role, which was (nearly) enough to inspire me to stand up in the theatre and cry out “Where did it all go so wrong in twelve short months, Carey?!”

Wall Street 2 is well made, well acted and sometimes, just sometimes, incredibly sharp and agreeable. The disastrous script, however, distracts from and ultimately taints these achievements, leading to a disheartening and wasteful sequel.

2/5

Review - The Social Network

2010-10-18T05:50:00.000-07:00

Rumours of a “Facebook Movie” in early 2009 were enough to baffle even the most optimistic of audiences. Even more so when David Fincher, the director of more than a few cult classic action-thrillers (Seven, Fight Club, Panic Room, Zodiac, ...The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button) signed on to helm what most could only assume would be a 90-minute long advert for one of the most recognizable brands in the world. Some, immediately upon getting wind of the production, swore off ever seeing the finished product. More fool them.

The Social Network deals with the creation of Facebook by Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg). Zuckerberg’s a Harvard undergrad; smart, ambitious and obsessed with getting noticed. What stops him from becoming disgustingly unlikeable in the two hours of narrative that follow his introduction is the realisation that most people, whether they like to admit it or not, would follow a similar path when put in his position.

The movie opens in 2003 with Zuckerberg breaking up with his girlfriend, storming home, and creating a website that allows users to rate his fellow Harvard students based on their physical appearance. It’s an irrational but strangely understandable reaction that sets him up as not so much an antihero but a flawed, compelling character who’s desperately naive despite his academic genius. Soon, on the technical strength of his cruel “Facemash” venture, Mark’s approached by three of his elite peers with a business proposal: to build them a social networking site exclusive to Harvard students. Three months go by. Mark eventually tells his “employers” that he doesn’t believe their site has the potential to function as they’d hope and pulls out of the project. He then himself launches TheFacebook: a social networking site exclusive to Harvard students.

The script was masterfully written by Aaron Sorkin. Amidst the dramatic angles and superbly crafted back-and-forth arguments, there’s a surprisingly huge amount of comedy injected into the film as well, which only helps to further ground the story in absolute reality. A stand-out scene comes right at the beginning of the film, the biting sharp conversation-then-argument between Mark and his girlfriend, Erica Albright (Rooney Mara). The dialogue here immediately introduces us to a fast, clever world and it’s thrilling to not only watch the events play out over the course of the film’s 2-hour running time, but to feel a part of it.

While Eisenberg shines as Zuckerberg, the supporting cast impresses to a great extent. Armie Hammer plays two-thirds of Zuckerberg’s rejected investors, the Winklelvoss twins. The use of one actor as two characters is never referenced or even alluded to, but the knowledge of it adds an additional comic layer to Hammer’s performance. Andrew Garfield is Eduardo Saverin, co-founder of Facebook and friend to Zuckerberg- initially. Garfield’s ability has been no secret to those watching over the past few years, but with his recent casting as Peter Parker in the new Spiderman films, a lot more people will start to take notice of this incredible actor. Saverin is cautiously presented as the real protagonist of the film, even while he lurks in the background for the duration of it. He’s the emotional backbone to the story. We, the audience, sympathise with Saverin and his misfortune rather than revel in it with the Winklevosses for the sake of comedy.

With Awards season looming, it’s likely The Social Network will impress enough to earn its fair share of nominations this year. This, so far, is the finest film of 2010 and the finest of Fincher’s career. Those willing to get past the idea of seeing a film about a website will be rewarded. It cannot and will not disappoint.

5/5