Ok, ok, I’ll tell you what it is. A Serbian Film is probably the most notorious film you’ve never heard of. Well actually, you might have heard of it but just not realised. It’s the film that, in the UK last year, became the most censored film in 16 years – the BBFC decided to cut 4 minutes 11 seconds out of it for it to get a cinema release. Or perhaps you heard this – it’s the one that, earlier this month, got a Spanish film festival director accused of showing child pornography. No? Ah ok. Well, it’s that one…

A Serbian Film is an example of transgressive cinema. There may be more extreme films out there on the fringes of legal but if there are, I haven’t heard of them. To boil it down though, it’s a horror film about a retired porno star. If none of these things I’ve mentioned about it have in any way piqued your interest then definitely, move along. Nothing to see here.

Still here? Ok, so either you’ve already heard of it or you’re curious about it.

Right, two last things before I get to talking about the film. Firstly, I’m not here to cater to sick weirdos, nor am I here to save you from watching it. I’m not going to describe the various “shocking” scenes in this film. If you must know I’m sure there are various sites on the internet that will tell you. Hey, you can probably find some of the scenes on YouTube, off you go. Secondly, I decided I’m not going to give a rating out of 10 on this one. I don’t see how I can. I just going to tell you what I thought of it. That’s it.

Context. I’m a very curious person. I’ve seen quite a few “extreme” films. I’m not easily shocked. I’m not particularly squeamish. I don’t watch it myself but I’m not rabidly against porn. I like to make up my own mind.

I’d first heard about A Serbian Film in August 2010 when it was announced the Film4 FrightFest would not be showing it because of the cuts demanded by the BBFC. Then I read about it, about how horrific it supposedly was, all the “ban this sick filth” kind of stuff. It’s not that I particularly get a kick out of seeing stuff like that but I’m just that curious – I’ve seen some bad things happen on screen, how bad can it be?

The first thing that struck me at the end of it was that it was far more of a film than I expected it to be. To be honest I was rather expecting a mish-mashed collection of exploitative horrific scenes of gore. I thought it might be a bit of a laugh with a few good kills. At worst I thought it’d be a more extreme version of Hostel. I did not like Hostel.

That’s not what this film is at all. It is actually a film, with characters and a plot and everything. Granted, it’s not an enjoyable film. I find it impossible to say that I liked it. It’s challenging, no doubt, but that’s really the point. And it’s technically good. It looks great. This is not dodgy hand-held, “sure, we’ll just knock together any old crap” film-making. There’s real skill in this. Now, perhaps that’s so surprising that I’m giving too much credit, but this is a debut feature so credit where credit’s due. The director, Srdjan Spasojevic uses simple but effective devices to enhance the story-telling and he manages to (mostly) weave all those horrific scenes together into a coherent narrative.

The film-makers are adamant that it’s an allegory for how Serbian people and Serbian artists are being treated by their institutions. You can read their statement here.

I buy that. I don’t believe this film was made for pure exploitation. I think it was made by an angry man who wanted to put his point across in the strongest way that he felt he could reach people. The problem is, amidst the numerous scenes of rape, torture, porn and, from time to time, child abuse, it’s not an allegory that’s easy to make out – As in, I don’t see how you could possibly see it if you weren’t told. I suppose that’s why they have to keep going around telling people. Honestly, there’s no way. I know, I know, he even called the film “A SERBIAN FILM” but I’m sorry dude. There’s just no way.

I guess in a sense then, it’s not a particularly effective film. Or maybe that means it’s too effective. You’re so overwhelmed by watching poor Milos getting fucked over that you don’t notice that it’s not just Milos getting fucked over, it’s everybody. And man, does he get fucked over or what…

I forgot to tell you who Milos is. Ok. Like I said earlier, it’s a horror film about a retired porno star. Milos is the porno star. Quick intro – Our friend Milos is a nice family man who’s having trouble making ends meet. He used to, apparently, be the greatest porno star there ever was but that’s all behind him now. Until he’s made an offer, do this one last job and you and your family will be set for life. All you have to do is act natural… It’s never that simple is it?

So. I’d better get to talking about what everyone else has talked about. You know, the rape, the torture, the murder, the porn, the child abuse, how it all happens at once… Yeah. That “newborn porn” thing? That happens. Awful things happen in this film. If you watch it you will see horrible, horrific things happen. This is a fact. Let’s get this clear though. There is absolutely no suggestion that these things are ok. You’re not supposed to be looking dumbly at this, laughing away. All these things are portrayed as terrible acts. This is not an amoral film.

Some might say that this goes beyond the boundaries of what you should commit to celluloid. Having watched this, I don’t think there should be boundaries*. I don’t think anyone should have the right to stop a film-maker making a film like this. Undoubtedly this will mean that that “mish-mashed collection of exploitative horrific scenes of gore” I feared, will be made. I’m sure A Serbian Film has opened that particular flood gate, but so be it.

Personally, I haven’t been scarred for life by watching it. I said on the facebook page earlier that, how you find watching it will depend on who you are, and particularly on how you are affected by what you see on a screen. To me, scenes like these are fake. I’m sure some stuff this bad does happen to people but it’s not happening in front of me now. It’s not the news, it’s just a film.

Which is not to say that I’m never affected by the films I watch, but it’s generally emotional films that get to me. Ones that I can relate to and empathise with. I think the film that affected me the most was Grave of the Fireflies. The turn of phrase is that one “can’t imagine what it would be like”. That’s not true. I couldn’t know what it would be like but the film certainly makes me imagine it. A Serbian Film does not make me imagine what it would be like to be Milos – I don’t relate to it like that.

I’m sure that means that I didn’t experience it the way the film-makers wanted me to. I know I said it wasn’t exploitation, but at the same time I’m sure that the film-makers do want you to be disgusted, horrified, repulsed. They felt they needed to show the nasty, ugly side of whatever it was that they were railing against, by showing you something nasty and ugly. And it is nasty and ugly and all those other things. But I won’t be dreaming about what I saw. Hell, I’ve seen it twice now and I can still close my eyes at night.

Don’t get me wrong. It is horrifying. And disgusting. And repulsive. It’s not like I felt blasé watching it. I’m not that jaded. Even though I’d heard about some of the things that happen, I hadn’t heard about others. It is shocking stuff, it just doesn’t prey on my mind now.

Anyway, if you’re asking yourself “Should I watch A Serbian Film?” then… well. I can’t tell you that. I could not recommend that anyone watch it. And I deliberately leave out the “in good conscience” modifier there – I could not recommend anyone watch it – even to be cruel, even for a laugh to see them squirm. But conversely I can’t say that no-one should watch it. I would possibly tell certain people I know not to watch it, because I know them well and I know it would disturb them, but that’s as far as I would go.

Fact is, you’ll have to make that choice for yourself. I do think people should be warned – if you watch this film you will see horrific, extremely violent things happen to people. And a lot of sex, that seems to get forgotten over violence sometimes. You probably haven’t seen anything like A Serbian Film before. You’re probably not going to enjoy it. Remember you were told this. I’ve seen Martyrs, I’ve seen Visitor Q, not even close.

I had the good fortune, the second time, to see this with a group of people. A group who didn’t know this was what they were going to see. I liked that, it was nice to get to talk about it afterwards and hear what other people thought – certainly it was better than sitting alone in my room wondering what the hell I was going to do with the rest of the evening… One person remarked that it was a conversation starter. Perhaps…

Have you seen A Serbian Film? No, what’s it about? Err…

Have you seen A Serbian Film? Yes. Ah, ok, did you enjoy it? Err…


Like I said earlier, I’m not doing a rating out of 10 on this one, I’ve chickened out… To sum up, all I’ll say is that, in my opinion, it’s not shite.

So there you have it, it’s up to you now.

* = Well, there should be legal boundaries in the sense that no-one taking part in the film should be exploited or subjected to any risks but I mean artistically.

… that’s right, Piranha 3D is most definitely, and unashamedly…

… a B movie.

Then again, what were you expecting from a film about prehistoric killer fish?

Truth be told, there isn’t much to be said about Piranha 3D. It’s pretty much exactly what they promised. Between the fake website, the leaked set photos and the fact that it’s apparently used the most fake blood ever in a film, there was never another way Piranha 3D could go.

What surprised me though is that it’s actually pretty good. Not good like Snakes on a Plane, which actually had a plot and all, but good fun. This could have all gone horrible wrong. Lordi knows every time I think “How badly can you mess up a slasher flick?” I come across a film that proves exactly how big a mess can be made.

Fortunately, Piranha 3D has pretty much everything you want from this type of gorefest… Ridiculous deaths, miraculous escapes, plucky heroic acts, stupid cowardly selfish acts, hot girls, idiot men, dodgy techno, a floating penis… Alexandre Aja really crammed it all in there. Everything and the kitchen sink… Really, I wouldn’t be surprised if they only stopped at 80,000 gallons of fake blood because there wasn’t anything left down the fake blood bank. Personally, I could have done with slightly less boobage, I’m just not a big fan of staring at boobs, but I can appreciate how the film would have been diminished with less of them, so fair enough.

The thing I found most surprising about it was the quality of the support characters. I would have expected nothing but there were actually loads of people you’d know in this film, Richard Dreyfuss, Christopher Lloyd and Ving Rhames all made an appearance. Dina Meyer (Starship Trooopers), Ricardo Chavira (Desperate Housewives) and Adam Scott (who particularly stood out in the CSI and L&O episodes I’ve seen him in) may not be as well know but you’d certainly know them if you saw them.

I also want to make particular mention of Kelly Brook and Jerry O’Connell. Perfectly cast in their respective roles. I’ve always liked Jerry O’Connell, Stand By Me is one of my favourite films, he made Joe’s Apartment tolerable (no mean feat considering my morbid fear of cockroaches) and yes I’ll admit, I was a big fan of Sliders. As for Kelly, I presume this means that Ms. Brook has given up on the idea of having a real acting career? Ah well, at least she’s not doing crappy ads for breakfast biscuits with Johnny Vaughan. Shaking her tits in a Hollywood B movie is still 10 times better than that.

I suppose I have to throw a little criticism in here. It’s not perfect. There’s some stupid stuff in it, stupider than it should be… and I do think that Christopher Lloyd is criminally underused, though that might have been his choice. Also, there’s a few people I would have kept alive, it would have been nice to see them in the sequel. Given the critical response though I’m sure they’ll manage to rope in a few more names to fill their spaces.

Oh! Also, I’m still convinced that 3D films lately are much too dark. Would it really be that hard to turn the light up a bit? Maybe it is that hard but it’s still something they should work on. I, for one, am getting a bit sick of squinting at every dark scene in a 3D film. Avatar looked great so there’s no excuse. It seems like I wouldn’t be hard… just do it already! Of course, in the grand scheme of Piranha this was a fairly minor annoyance, I just though I’d mention it.

So the fact is, Piranha 3D is a triumph of its excess. I’m definitely looking forward to the sequel (presumably Piranha 3D 2?) and if you like a laugh and you’re not squeamish, I recommend you give Piranha 3D a look. Though not necessarily in 3D.

7.5/10

Early reviews have been extremely positive, actually it’s currently at 100% on Rotten Tomatoes… that kind of thing always worries me. I had the good fortune to see this film at a preview, courtesy of Simply Zesty and Universal Pictures about a week and a half ago so I hadn’t heard anything about whether it was actually good or not. That’s the way I like it, expectations as low as possible.

I have to say, I thought it was a great movie. I wouldn’t say it was an amazingly fantastic movie but it was great fun, a great laugh. I’d worry slightly that people are going to go into this thinking that this is some kind of landmark in superhero movies. It’s a solid, funny, action-packed yarn but that’s it really.

But I don’t want to put it down, I just want to keep people’s expectations in check. Particularly because I did think it started a little slowly, there’s not loads of ass-kicking all the time from the start. Which is good, because they’ve actually bothered having a story. It’s not just mindless action and wonder if that might put people off a bit. Be assured that you will see a whole load of ass-kicking but that’s not all you’ll see. So don’t expect that.

That said, I’ve started to realise that I have quite low standards… when it comes to films. I’ll let film makers away with dodgy stuff all the time. As far as I’m concerned I’ll let a bit of crappiness and stupidity or whatever go by, as long as there’s some really good scenes and a half decent plot and characters. In this case, I don’t expect action films to have much of a plot, if they have one at all. So, when one comes along with even a modicum of character building or thematic structure, I think it’s great…. and with Kick Ass I’m just a bit worried that I might have fooled myself into thinking it was great.

But I don’t think so. You’ll just have to go see it and decide for yourself.

There are two things I want to mention before I send you on your merry way though.

One. Kick Ass is rated 16 for a reason. Sure, it’s about superheroes, but it’s definitely not suitable for kids. Quite apart from the language, which isn’t something that bothers me at all, the violence is significant. I watch all sorts of films, plenty horror and slasher films and the like and I was still a bit shocked by some of the violence in this. It’s not worse than anything I’ve seen and I wouldn’t even call it that excessive, but it shocked me a bit because it was more realistic that I was expecting.

Two. I didn’t find Nicolas Cage as painful to watch in this as I usually do. It’s kind of strange because he is absolutely awful in parts of it but I’m pretty sure he’s doing it on purpose in those instances… at least that’s how I rationalised it. In any case, I know there are plenty of people out there who, like me, can’t stand Nicolas Cage and I just want to assure them it’s ok. He doesn’t ruin the movie.

So… that’s all I have to say really. As always, I’m intrigued to know what you think of it. Comment and let me know…

8/10

The force is strong with this one. Umm… the Paramount marketing force that is. This is apparently now the most profitable movie of all time. So of course, I wasn’t expecting much going in to it. Actually I genuinely wasn’t… I do wonder if I would have been better off carrying a bit of anticipation though, because as it was, I didn’t think that much of it. Maybe I would have enjoyed it more if I hadn’t been expecting so little?

In the interest of full disclosure I should probably mention that I felt very sick for the last 30 mins or so of this film. I was only queasy for the middle 30 mins. I’ve always had a problem with motion sickness and the whole shaky hand held camera really gets me. I can’t even watch people playing First Person Shooters and this was well beyond that. The last time I felt it this bad was at Cloverfield. It was a bit more tolerable during Cloverfield though. That might have been because the film was a bit more fun…

It’s not that Paranormal Activity was a bad film, it wasn’t. It was fine. As I think it through though, I realise that I can’t really point at the “best bit”. Because there wasn’t a best bit. But then again there wasn’t really a worst bit either. There was a stupidest bit, but I’ll leave you to pick your own, if or when you see it. There were also some pointless bits. And yes, there were some scary bits. I guess what I’m saying here is that it was a bit bitty.

My main problem with it was that it was cheap. Not that it was cheap looking but that the scares were cheap. It was real “things that go bump in the night” scary. There was nothing that was really… … let’s just say I kind of expected there would be a more insidious creepiness to it. It was all a very straight up “BE SCARED NOW!” kind of thing. I would have liked to have seen a bit more thought behind it. Not that I like jump scenes – like I said, cheap – but all the scares were pretty telegraphed and that was annoying. What’s the point of a jump scene you warn someone about?

Ah no, I’m not being entirely fair. I mean ok, I may have been watching a film starring the two least haunting aware characters I’ve ever seen but yer wan Katie really did have a great scream. I was well impressed with that. And I quite scared by it to a certain degree. I live alone in a two bed apartment and I’ve never been up to the attic so… uh… I’d rather not think about it. But it’s not like I had trouble sleeping or anything, it was no Exorcist and it was certainly no Event Horizon

In the end, I was disappointed by this film. Which is not to say that I hated it. Or that I think that people shouldn’t be scared by it. On the contrary, I think many people are genuinely scared by it and there’s nothing wrong with that. I save my disdain for people who are into the stuff like Michael Jackson: The Live Seance. I just didn’t think it was a great film.

I really think this might be one of those rare films that would be better on TV. I could imagine renting the DVD, watching it with a few friends and having a good time. Or watching it alone at home and being terrified. But in Screen 2 in The Savoy it just didn’t seem up to much.

Or who knows, maybe I was just put off by the nausea; it’s hard to appreciate an atmosphere when you think you might need to run to the bathroom to be sick any minute. I gotta start taking travel sickness tablets before watching these types of films…

5/10

NB: I am somewhat dismayed to see that there are plans for a Paranormal Activity 2… did Hollywood learn nothing from Blair Witch 2?

Also, shout out to the Paramount marketing team on this one. Great job folks.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is odd. To be honest, I don’t know if I liked it. It was interesting but it wasn’t particularly satisfying. It looked good but I don’t know… I thought it would look amazing, that it would be set in this fantastical whimsical land and it wasn’t. But at the same time I don’t know why I really expected that… jumping to conclusions… I guess the word Imaginarium conjures up, for me, a carnival kind of atmosphere and that’s kind of backdrop we’d have on the story. But it wasn’t. Which is fine, it just wasn’t what I expected.

What it was, was a loose modern-day old style cautionary tale. Or at least that’s the best way I can describe it. My problem with it was that the story was… clouded. Or not clouded enough, they could have gone either way and like so many films, they just didn’t really decide which way to go. I suppose my opinion has to come in here as well… I like a good reveal and it kept looking like there was going to be one but in the end it was split. There was a reveal but there was a drip feed as well and I just don’t know if the timing really worked. There wasn’t really that convergence that you need with if you’re doing both.

There is, of course, the inevitable question. How much of an effect did Heath Ledger‘s death have on the film? I don’t think the effect is particularly apparent but how can I know? Terry Gilliam’s films are such personal works that it’s hard to imagine that it wasn’t affected in some way. I do think the transitions are seamless though, Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell can be proud of their work. They really do uphold Heath Ledger’s legacy, they completed his last work while in no way treading on it. The faces changed but the character continued on.

Quick mentions as well, I thought Lily Cole was very good. I look forward to seeing her in more films. Andrew Garfield (who played Anton) on the other hand was crap, he almost spoiled the film on the me to be honest. What surprises me is that I’ve read other reviews where people really like him. I don’t know why he was in the film at all… either get a better actor to bump up the character or write a role for him that is *ahem* better suited to his talent. Actually it’s annoying me thinking about him… I’ll forget him now.

So, what more can I say? It’s a strange film. I would recommend it because I definitely think it’s worth a watch, it’s extremely imaginative… In fact the more I think about it the more I liked it, maybe I should watch it again. But the problem remains, I just didn’t think it was that fulfilling… though it did remind me… if you play with fire…

7.5/10

N.B. You know what, I’m not actually sure what the Imaginarium was in the end… was it the mirror, the show or the imagining?

Share

But like I said, I wouldn’t describe myself as a big fan. I haven’t exactly enjoyed all of this films. They’re all classy and they’re all… cool but I didn’t really like Reservoir Dogs or Kill Bill: Vol. 2 that much and to be honest… and I know this is some kind of blasphemy to some, but I wasn’t that pushed on Pulp Fiction either. Parts of it were good… I should point out that I only saw it a few years ago, so long after I’d heard a lot of hype about it, and I thought the same thing as I did after I saw Taxi Driver; is that what all the fuss was about?

Anyway, this isn’t a review of QT, it’s a review of Inglourious Basterds, so I should really get on with it.

I knew going into Inglourious Basterds that it’s a long enough film, this theatrical release is 153 minutes long. I know it’s a thing that might put people off and I think that’s important to know from the outset. Personally I don’t mind relatively long run times, as long as I know in advance. In fact I check how long all films are before I watch them. It saves me the annoyance of thinking a film is over when it isn’t; in the past this had spoiled my enjoyment of a film… not any more. I recommend this tactic. So now you know how long it is, don’t complain if your bum gets sore or you have to go to the toilet. Drink less and go to a comfortable cinema. Actually, these days 153 mins isn’t even that long… so perhaps I didn’t even need to mention. But now you know.

None of this tells you about the film though and to be honest I think you’re better off not know much about it. It’s a lot more interesting plotwise than I thought it would be. I guess I’d forgotten that behind all the talking and all the style, QT always holds his films up with a strong plot. (I haven’t seen Death Proof though, despite having a signed book of the script, so don’t go moaning at me if it doesn’t have a plot). QT keeps the action in bitesized chunks and it makes the length easier to… digest as it were.

So finally, what did I think of this one? I thought it was a good romp, great fun and it futher reinforced my belief that Brad Pitt absolutely deserves an Oscar. I’ve thought that since 1996 though… but he is just so funny in this, if I hadn’t seen 12 Monkeys or Fight Club I would have said he should just do comedies. Not that Inglourious Basterds is a comedy. Nor is it a war movie. It’s kind of a thriller, action, drama with some funny parts. QT has done a great job of melding together the different genres and balancing them so it holds your interest. It’s worth mentioning Christoph Waltz too, well cast.

It’s not really like any other movie I’ve seen recently so I don’t know how to recommend it really. Obviously if you’re a Tarantino fan you should see but if you’re not… then I guess it really depends on the kind of films you like. I wouldn’t say that it’s a big crowd pleaser. I thought it was brilliant but I just don’t know how other people will experience it. Course it could be one of those films that captures the imagination and everybody loves. Certainly I didn’t hear anyone complaining as I was leaving the cinema and I always listen around on the way out. On balance I think I should recommend it to everyone… but just don’t go in with any particular expectations.

The thing about QT is that I don’t really think his films have a definite signature. I mean ok, some people say his storytelling is his signature, or his reference to pop culture, or his use of music… but the fact is, you can’t have three signatures, certainly not if you don’t use all of them in all your films… He’s not like Wes Anderson or Michel Gondry, who both have a definite visual style. It’s not a bad thing that he doesn’t but it just makes it hard for me to be sure about him. That’s why, even though I really loved Jackie Brown, Kill Bill: Vol. 1 and a number of other films he was involved in – (though not Hostel, let me make that clear… not Hostel) – I’m just not sure if I love QT. This film’s taken him one step closer though. I’m not entirely convinced that it’s a masterpiece but it’s definitely one of the best films I’ve seen this year, it’s a film that I’d be happy to watch again.

Oh, also, it’s not particularly gruesome or violent but if you are squeamish you might need to look away once or twice. It really mainly plot and dialogue driven.

8.5/10

An afterthought: I had a look at a couple of negative reviews and I must say, I just don’t see why some people are criticising it because it doesn’t accurately portray WWII or the different sides of the war. I really don’t get it. It’s a film, a work of fiction. Ok, it takes one idea from reality, but that doesn’t mean it then has some obligation to be a documentary. It’s not even particularly about the war, it’s just set during the war. You could have made this films about an epic struggle between cats and dogs if you wanted to. Actually….

I started this review in this conventional manner as, in many ways, this is a very conventional film. I hadn’t heard much about this film except that it’s been widely hailed as a return to classic ’70s hard sci-fi. I suppose it is classic sci-fi, but personally I don’t think hard sci-fi has gone anywhere… last I checked it was alive and well in films like WALL·E, Sunshine and Children of Men. But that’s not a criticism of the film, more a criticism of the publicity… and the publicity is relevant, it colours your view of a film just as much as mood or the company you see it in… I try not the let these things affect how I see a film but the fact is, it’s impossible.

There was nothing particularly wrong with this film. I enjoyed it really, as I enjoy most of the films I see, especially sci-fi. But then again I didn’t feel there was anything in this film that I hadn’t seen before. Themes of isolation and abandonment are abound in fiction and this film reminded of quite a few other films I’ve seen… and I should point out that I haven’t seen 2001: a space odyssey or Solaris, the two which a lot of people are referencing in the context of this film.

It was a nice, self-contained, interesting piece of sci-fi story-telling but I can’t help wishing that it was a little bit more. It could have been a longer film, or it could have been a good book; I don’t know, it was too removed, too tidy, I just didn’t feel involved, there was no sense of introspection – which is what I would expect from classic science fiction. I expect to read or watch classic hard sci-fi and think “What would I do?” or “Could we , actually get to that situtation?”, this film didn’t leave me with any of that. Sure, technically you could ask yourself those questions about Moon, but it didn’t bring me to that point and that’s what I was looking for.

I tend to criticise then try to find some nice things to say in my reviews, so why break a tradition? This was a good film and Sam Rockwell puts on a great performance. It’s an engaging enough story and it’s worth seeing if you like classic sci-fi – along the lines of Issac Asimov and Philip K. Dick I mean, as opposed to say, The Terminator or Star Wars.

7/10

I actually don’t know if I’ve seen all the films but I do know that I read 5.5 of the books. I only got about half way through this particular book. I had enjoyed them but after the behemoth that was Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix I just couldn’t face another one. I really just thought that HPATOOTP was crying out for a good editor and I couldn’t read another one thinking the same thing. That said, I did know what happens in the end of Half-Blood Prince, a wikipedia vandal spoiled that one for me!

Personally, while I do think it’s a brillant story, I haven’t been that pushed on going to the films. They have been so close to the books that you don’t really need to see them, they are pretty much exactly as you imagine them so what’s the point. I’ll probably go along and see the next two though, just because I never got around to reading the last book. So it was with a certain lack of anticipation that I went along to the Savoy to see it at the Irish première…

… and about 3 hours later (there was a delay) I walked out thinking ok, that was how I imagined it. Which is not to say that I didn’t enjoy it but it seem a bit like… ok.

I really did enjoy it though, I thought it looked brillant and I really like how it was that bit darker. It was well balanced but if I had to criticise I’d say that it almost swept over things too quick… I’m not sure how, since it was 2 and a half hours long… but it did.

My word of warning would be that it is not a stand alone film. Harry Potter is absolutely a series and if you haven’t read the books or seen all the other films, then there really is no point in going. It will not make sense. I think that’s fair enough but I do wonder now if film really was the way to go… given how rushed some part of this one felt, and how they are splitting the last book into two films, perhaps they should have just made it a TV series spanning a few seasons?

Anyway I don’t have that much to say by way of critque to be honest! It was exactly what it said on the tin, the actors were the same as they’ve always been (ok, not amazing), as were the effects (excellent), and the score (suitably dramatic) so as it was a good story well told, I gave it an 8/10 on twitter. On further reflection I’m going to downgrade that to a 7.5, I’m taking that half a point off as it felt a bit like a placeholder film really…

7.5/10

The review for Crank was pretty short so I’m gonna keep this one short too. Again, it’s not really worth worrying about spoilers when it comes to Crank films, so I’ll tell you a little about it. If you recall, that mad day he had did not end well for our friend Chev Chelios. Luckily for us, he got better and now, a few months later, he’s well up for sorting out the problems that have befallen him. There’s no point in saying much more about the plot except that it is reasonably well thought out, as was the plot of the first film, but it’s completely irrelevant. Basically someone has stolen Chev’s heart and replaced it with a battery powered one. So obviously Chev’s pissed about that and is on the rampage trying to get it back.

I would say that you should watch Crank before watching Crank: High Voltage. Most of the characters from Crank make a reappearance and there are a few flashbacks so it might be a bit confusing if you haven’t seen it. That said, maybe you’d just appreciate it on a different level if you haven’t. I don’t know. I’m in two minds about it actually, because I didn’t like Crank: High Voltage as much as Crank and I don’t know if that’s because I already knew pretty much what it was about.

Crank was so crazy and so different, Crank: High Voltage is crazy and different too but in the same way. They do ramp it up a bit, a lot actually, and I did appreciate that and I did really enjoy it, but at the end of the day it’s the same thing. Also I think keeping the characters didn’t really help it. They did bring in a couple of new ones but they seemed to try to mix all the old ones in as well. There were just too many in end. I think they could’ve taken out some of the scenes with the old ones and developed a couple of the new ones a bit more and it would have been better off for it. Could have made it a bit more interesting. In fact I do think they wasted Bai Ling a bit, her character could definitely have perked things up.

That said, it was still a great film and if you loved Crank you should definitely go see. If you hated Crank then there’s absolutely no point in watching this one. In fact why are you even reading this review? This is not the film for you!

I’m gonna give this an 8. Maybe I’m just being a bit moan-y because it really was great fun but I thought Crank was near perfect for the kind of film it was and I was hoping that the follow up would be too.

8/10

Anyway, this isn’t a review of any of those films… the film I saw last night was Watchmen. For those of you who may not have heard, Watchmen is based on the Alan Moore comic book series of the same name. That series has been much lauded by critics… and indeed by everyone I know who’s read it. Apparently it is quite the seminal work in comic books.

Sounds great but I haven’t read it. I’ve nothing against comic books, I just haven’t read it. When I heard the film was coming out I thought about picking it up, not least because it was staring prettily at me in every book shop I’ve been to in the last few months. In the end I didn’t; I’ve heard that phrase “It’s not as good as the book” said far too many times about films to risk ruining a film that looked like I could really enjoy it.

It would seem that I was right to avoid the book first. Quite a few reviews I have skimmed through mentioned that it’s so caught up in looking like the comic that it misses what the comic was actually saying. Phew! Glad I didn’t have to experience that disappointment. I really liked this film. Thought it was great. I suppose by not reading the comic I can take the themes and the story at face value. This makes for an interesting film, particularly compared to some of the crap I’ve seen recently (see list above. they weren’t all crap though).

So we’ve established that I’m in the pro-Watchmen-the-film camp. That’s not to say that I thought it was a brilliant film. I thought it looked great, that it was interesting story and in parts it was stunning… but it’s a long film and I’d be lying if I said that every one of the 163 minutes was used to its full potential. It’s patchy in parts, especially around the middle. In fact not many films that long avoid patchiness and sagging. It’s also not to say that I think it should have been shorter. One of the things I hate is adaptations that insist on updating and abridging their source material, artifically transplanting in some modern day setting to make it “relevent”. What a load of bollocks. If a story is relevent you don’t to change its setting. Your audience should be able to draw their own parallels. Bah, I’m sick of films that try to spoon feed you.

…Sorry, I got off the point there. I admire that Watchmen stayed true to its source material, even if it was to its alleged detriment. I’d rather watch a long somewhat flawed adaptation than a half assed cutdown version that bears scant resemblance to the original it’s trying to update. Though… I’m not saying all adaptations are bad… I’m just saying that if you’re out there saying that you’re telling a certain story, you should tell the story

I got well off track there. Right. Patchy, yes. Watchmen starts out great, the opening montage was really excellent, we’re quickly brought up to speed with how this alternate timeline has progressed so far. To be honest this really is the best bit of the film. As the film goes on it gets a little muddled in places. It’s as those the scenes don’t entirely flow together. This is probably the problem that those who’ve read the comics are talking about. I didn’t find it that troubling but it did serve to… I suppose hold up the story telling. It’s not that I thought it was disjointed or hard to follow. That’s not the case. It was just kind of like things were being left unsaid but you couldn’t tell what they were.

I guess in a comic or a book you tend to fill in the blanks with your own emotions and interpretations, you read at your own pace according to what you’re reading. With a film you’re in a more receptive state. A film tells you its story on its terms and you process it afterwards. The best films stay with you, thinking about what you’ve experienced. Or maybe I’m just talking a load of shite but it seems to explain the gaps in this film to me. Or maybe Gilliam was right and it really should have been a mini-series. Perhaps 163 mins wasn’t long enough to engage us with the situations and characters in Watchmen and that’s why it felt patchy, they didn’t have enough time to make us invest in the full story. Actually I’m sure Gilliam was right but I don’t think it means that this was a bad film. Just not a brilliant film.

I want to quickly highlight a couple of the more jarring things. That great montage I mentioned does ominously forbode one of the things that Snyder should have stayed away from. While I enjoyed the songs, they were very obvious. A director shouldn’t really get the soundtrack to tell us what’s going on… that’s that screen is for. It was annoying. Also there was a few scenes that could have been dealt with better, less could have been more. I gather they were fairly faithful recreations of scenes in the comic however what probably works as a series of panels in a comic don’t necessarily work when you actually film the whole scene with those reference points.

I haven’t really dwelt on what I liked in particular about the film because I liked in general really. Oh, I particularly liked the nod to Dr. Strangelove, I always like it when people reference Dr. Strangelove. And how can you not when you’re telling this kind of story? Aside from that… the characters, the look, the story, all good… and all from the comic. I guess I’ll like the comic when I read it.

Anyway this was a particularly long ramble so I’ll finish up by saying it’s well worth a look if you haven’t read the comic. If you have I can’t really tell you if it is or not though I would lean to saying you should. If only so that you get to see some beautiful images on screen. Oh, also I heard the end was completely different from the comic so I went and looked it up. Personally I don’t think this new ending is any better or worse than the comic. Just different. I think it worked in the context of the film and I have to say that it is eminently more acceptable to the average cinemagoer. I wouldn’t have minded myself but I think that a lot of people who’ll never read it would have had a problem with the comic book end.

All’s left to say is, that I still would have loved to see Terry Gilliam’s mini-series version. Here’s hoping.

8/10

NB: Now that I’ve written my own review I’m reading a few of other reviews out there. I’ve noticed a lot of critics referring to The Dark Knight and how The Dark Knight is vastly superior. Then I went back and noticed that I never wrote a review of it myself. If I had I would have said that it was ok, not great. Actually it would have been a lot like my review of Quantum of Solace. Though I would have given it a 8/10. I really don’t understand the raving about it, I mean it was an entertaining couple of hours and Heath Ledger was outstanding but it doesn’t make you think for more than about 5 minutes after it. It was tiring, obsessively realistic and it languished in bleak, gritty darkness, much like Batman himself. Watchmen didn’t flow as well The Dark Knight and the acting wasn’t of the same caliber but I enjoyed just as much, if not more