Chronicle chronicles the story of three high school boys who find themselves with the somewhat unusual ability to move objects with their minds… or, you know, telekenisis. So it’s kind of a sci-fi film and if you don’t know already, I’m a sucker for any film with a bit of sci-fi in it.

A lot of people are calling this a superhero film, but personally I think that belies a narrative that really is a little more complex. It’s not a superhero film. Just because you have extraordinary powers, doesn’t make you a superhero. This is much closer to a coming-of-age / teen drama, more Carrie than Captain America if you will. And it’s far more interesting because of it.

Now I have a no spoiler policy on this site so I’m not going into what exactly happens to makes this film different rather, what makes it admirable. With Chronicle, Josh Trank and Max Landis (son of John Landis, in case you were wondering) have set out with a relatively small budget, to make a genre film with a splash of originality. Something which is so often lacking in films about teens. These days, all that seems to happen to teens is that they fall in love. Or get wasted. Or both.

Trank and Landis take their three central characters, put them in a fantastical situation and, I believe, manage to create realistically immature and distinct responses for the three of them. Which is not to say that the characters are perfectly drawn… It’s short runtime means that it relies on us recognising certain tropes. Which is fine as a storytelling device, except that one of them could have done with a little more work – I didn’t know who he was meant to be and thus some of his actions were a little confusing. To be generous I’m going to say that perhaps he’s a stereotype who’s little used in film and if you’d gone to an American high school, perhaps he’s very recognisable… *shrug*

There are decent performances all round from the cast. Dean DeHaan has the most interesting role so he’s probably one to watch for the future. In real life they’re all a little older than they should be but I think they pull it off. The jovial relationship enjoyed between the three very different characters comes off as eminiently believable and, as their powers increase, the way their relationships change is well handled by the script and the actors.

However, while I enjoyed the film, it’s not without it’s faults… It could have been 5-10 mins longer and slightly refocused – spending a little less time spent on the powers and a little more on the characters would have led to a tighter film and set us up a bit better for the ending. Speaking of the ending, I thought it was good, I imagine a lot of the budget was spent on it and it looked decent for a $15 million dollar film. It may not sound that cheap but for what they were trying to do, it kind of is.

The biggest, biggest problem I have with Chronicle is that it’s “found footage“. I tire of found footage. I find it gimmicky and I just don’t see the point. Ok, it works for some films – as much as I disliked 2/3 of the Paranormal Activity films, the whole home video / CCTV thing made sense – here not so much… I can see no reason this couldn’t have just been shot normally. It would have avoided two big question marks – Why do they keep shooting? Who edited this footage? It takes you out of the film for no good reason.

So, yeah, if you can get past the whole “found footage” thing, Chronicle is a surprisingly good watch. I’m not sure it would entirely be worth paying the £15 peak time ticket price of a Leicester Square cinema – especially with the decent, not mind-blowing, effects – but it’s well worth your €10.

7/10

As a result, I went into Man on a Ledge only knowing that it starred Sam Worthington, Elizabeth Banks and Jamie Bell. And I put it to you that this is the best way to be. So if you haven’t seen it you can stop reading now. Not that I’m going to give away spoilers, I do, of course, have a no spoiler policy, but it’s worth not even having any expectations.

Course, from the title, Man on a Ledge sounds like a high concept thriller… but it’s actually not. Which was somewhat disappointing to me but how or never. The premise is that Sam Worthington plays a disgraced cop, convicted of a crime he swears he did not commit. He’s exhausted his last appeal and now faces 25 years or so in prison. He’s obviously not happy about this. To tell you any more would be giving things away so I’ll move right along.

What you get with Man on a Ledge is a tight, taut thriller. It’s relatively short, at 102 mins, and it manages to pack a surprising amount of plot in that time. Crucially though, and you’d think this would be something that more films would focus on, the plot makes sense. Well ok, being honest, there’s a couple of rather large plot holes, but they’re nothing that are worth focusing on. You can skim over them with ease.

What keeps the film moving is it’s tight structure. It never gets boring as, with almost clockwork precision, an interesting plot point is revealed nearly every 15 mins. This makes it feel a little like an extended TV show, but that’s not to its detriment. If it’s a TV show, it’s a good one with much higher production values and a rather more talented cast than you might generally get on TV. Except on HBO. They get some serious stars over on that channel…

Another thing that I enjoyed about it, though it is part of what firmly takes it out of high concept territory, is that there’s a bit of levity to it. We don’t spend all our time being very serious on the ledge. There are some great and very funny scenes with Jamie Bell and Genesis Rodriguez, good fun as supporting characters. Rodriguez is certainly an actress I’d like to see in more English speaking roles, I think she could be a great comic actress. Her next role is in Will Ferrell’s Casa de mi Padre, so here’s hoping my hunch is right! And, of course, that Will Ferrell’s new film is actually funny…

My only real criticism of Man on a Ledge is that there may be a slight dragging toward the end.. but I think that has more to do with Ed Harris. He seemed a little confused as to why he was there. He never seemed comfortable in the film. Perhaps he just never got on board with the concept… All in all though, Man on a Ledge is a neat little thriller. It’s probably not going to set your world on fire, but it’s well worth a look.

6.5/10

In preparation for this film then, I decided to read up a bit. He was actually a fascinating character… you know, if you find paranoid cross-dressing egomaniacs fascinating. Or at least that’s how some of those who write history have drawn him.

If you get past that, he was instrumental in the creation of the FBI, having been appointed Director of its predecessing bureau in 1924. At the tender age of 29. Hmm… Ever feel like you should be doing more with your life? Hoover served in the capacity of Director for 48 years, through 8 different Presidents. He was a man who, not only revolutionised criminal investigation, but was so far reaching in politics that he shaped US history. Of course, that doesn’t preclude him being a paranoid cross-dressing egomaniac but… it does put a different spin on it. So, even though biopics aren’t really my thing, I was kind of looking forward to this one.

Pity. Because as biopics go, this one really doesn’t measure up to it’s subject.

I guess I was expecting to learn a bit more about J. Edgar. I thought it might bring this complex, ambitious character to life. Instead what I got was a dull, bloated half baked selection of his greatest hits. In, what looked like, plasticine.

Indeed I think the first mistake of this film was going down the flashback route. Or, more accurately, the “dictation of his memoirs” route. It’s a structure that serves to limit the scope of what is covered in the Hoover’s history. Arguably, this is the intent, we are seeing his version of the past. However it doesn’t necessarily make compelling viewing, it means that we can almost forgo any insight to be gained from these events…

No matter. This would be fine if it was interwoven with the story in the “present” day. History shapes the man as he shapes history… and all that. Unfortunately it’s not. The past events mostly peter out after the “Lindbergh Baby” case, the only event that significant time is spent on. This leaves almost 35 years that are barely touched. I’m pretty sure this wasn’t the most significant event in J. Edgar Hoover’s career. I understand the fact that they couldn’t cover every thing… fair enough. But they didn’t even focus on this as a way to parallel the stories. Plus, the constant skipping forward to the “present” day meant that the film never developed a coherent narrative to hang the character on.

It is, theoretically, a little more successful in building up a picture of the man through his relationship with his mother (played by Judi Dench) and his deputy, and supposed romantic life partner, Clyde Tolson. I say theoretically because there’s so much padding in the rest of the film that it’s hard to make out these core relationships clearly. However, yes, if you ignore large sections of the movie, these parts are almost worthwhile. The conclusions drawn are a little simplistic and obvious perhaps but, for the most part, interesting.

In my eyes though, the problems with the sagging structure and lifeless plot are insurmountable. This is a bad screenplay coupled with some lazy directorial choices. Yes, Dustin Lance Black and Clint Eastwood, this is your fault. This is not a good movie. Like Iron Lady last week, you wouldn’t know he was one of the most controversial figures in US history from this film… The scope of his influence is just not adequately dealt with at all.

It’s quite a shame because, aside from those massive issues, it’s decent. As unconvincing (read: horrendous) as the “later years” make up is, Leonardo DiCaprio and Armie Hammer (as Tolston) pull off reasonably strong, measured performances – except for in one scene where I laughed out loud, I blame the direction. Judi Dench as well is typically commanding in her role as Hoover’s mother. I like to assume she’s a lovely older lady when off camera, because there’s more than one film I’ve seen her in where she’s downright scary.

I also liked the colour palette. I take it as more a stylistic choice than a particular indicator of anything, but it looked good. The cinematography was otherwise unremarkable but I think it’s worth mentioning the things they didn’t f-k up in this film.

Speaking of things they f-d up… I would be remiss if I didn’t talk a little more about the make up. I know I’ve already said it was horrendous but I’m not sure that gives proper dues to exactly how awful it is. It’s bizarre. Seriously bizarre. Naomi Watts, as Helen Gandy, Hoover’s long standing secretary, comes away the best out of it. It helps, I suppose, that she’s that bit older than DiCaprio and Hammer, but she still looks… odd. DiCaprio’s only seems acceptable when you see Armie Hammer. Poor Armie Hammer. What did they do to you? There’s 46 years in the age difference between Hammer and the character they have him playing. They should have just got someone else, and spent a bit more money on DiCaprio’s latex face. And fat suit.

The one thing that rests a little uncomfortably with me is that… well… It’s the same problem I have with biopics in general. I can never reconcile with myself whether we’re supposed to believe them or not. After a biopic I always feel like I have to go out and find all the facts, read the true story. Which is, of course, often impossible when it comes to historical figures. Films have a power over people, when you see something you believe it’s true. The Usual Suspects is a prime example of this. I do wonder if that means that there should be a certain responsiblity on the part of the film-makers… There can’t be really, after all movies are for entertainment. But… I just hope that people don’t believe everything they see. Even though it’s up on a big screen.

Anyway, that is unimportant. What is important is that I can’t, in any good faith, recommend you see this. Even though I hated Haywire – also out this week – at least you’ll see some ass-kicking in it. There’s no such amusement to be had with J. Edgar. It’s 137 minutes long… and you feel every one of them.

5/10

The first I had heard of The Artist was a few months back, maybe about 4 months ago. I was in the cinema (surprise!), either Cineworld or the IFI, when this completely captivating trailer came on.

I don’t usually put trailers in my review but I thought this one warranted it. Probably best viewed on a 40 ft screen. Or failing that, full screen.

I just remember thinking, I have never seen anything like that before.

… Bear in mind that the only silent movie I’ve ever watched was Mel Brooks’s Silent Movie. Oh, and Nosferatu. So, yes… nothing like it before.

I didn’t know anything about it and the trailer didn’t really tell me all that much. At that stage it wasn’t out in the US, there wasn’t a UK or Irish release date and there was so little info on it that I didn’t even know that it was a silent movie… so there was every chance it was going to be just a one week run in the IFI or something. I didn’t matter though, I knew I had to see it.

Flash-forward to today and The Artist is everywhere. Some are even calling it the film of the year. It’s only 16th January for Pete’s sake!

I wouldn’t go that far, not just yet, but I will say that it is an absolutely delightful affair. Jean Dujardin plays George Valentin, a star in the world of silent movies, whose career is threatened by the advent of the age of the Talkies. As his star is falling, another is rising, in the form of Peppy Miller (Bérénice Bejo). Miller is a talented bright young thing, who Valentin had helped with her first break.

Despite how charming the film is, and how charming it looked in the trailer… it is, oddly enough, not the film I thought it was going to be. I suppose I thought it was going to be some kind of epic, in the old style of film-making, and it wasn’t. It is, pretty much, the story of George Valentin. And Uggy. Not that this was disappointing, but I’m just surprised that people seem to be so swept away by a film which is, fairly simple to be honest.

What sets it apart from the usual is that it’s quite clever, since there’s no dialogue writer/director Michel Hazanavicius has (obviously) had to call upon his actors to EMOTE. And for EMOTING to look sensible, you’ve gotta have sharp actors. Everyone here is up to the task, John Goodman and James Cromwell in particular, shine in their respective roles. The Artist works very well in this way. I never thought the gimmick wore thin…

… what wore a little thin for me was Valentin’s trials and tribulations. And, when things got a bit heavy, I’m not sure that the tone matched the story we were being told. But, I’m not going to go into the plot. Suffice to say that I thought the runtime was slightly long, even though it was only 100 mins. Aside from that, there isn’t a lot to complain about. It’s a perfectly lovely slice of throwback cinema, a cute and entertaining look at a bygone era.

In any case, they saved it all at the end. I loved the ending.

So, go out and watch this film. While you might not think it’s the film of the year, you’re bound to enjoy it. Unless you don’t like music. If you don’t like music you might have a problem.

8/10

In more ways than one.

Man of the moment, Michael Fassbender, plays Brandon Sullivan, an Irish-American business suit type with an addiction to porn and sex with anonymous strangers. His life is going… relatively well really. His job hasn’t yet cottoned on to his problem – or at the least he must be making them enough money for it to not be a problem – and the ladies seem to fall at his feet. That is until his hot mess of a sister (Carey Mulligan) turns up.

That’s pretty much it. Ah no, it’s not really but it may as well be.

To be honest, I was sorely disappointed by Shame. There was so much buzz, so much hype around it and I just don’t think it’s worthy.

Which is not to say that you shouldn’t see it, Michael Fassbender puts on an excellent performance, one that may even warrant the honour of an Oscar nomination, but – in my opinion of course – there isn’t much more reason to see it. I’m just not sure why it’s a film at all. It is an intimate and granular portrait of a man consumed by his demons, no doubt, but as a film it just didn’t make for compelling viewing, for me.

Maybe I shouldn’t have been surprised. Looking back over my review of director Steve McQueen’s last film, Hunger, I had similar issues. Not quite the same but similar. In Hunger we weren’t shown any of the motivations for the characters. That wasn’t a problem for it though, there was a delicate balance to be struck in telling the story of Bobby Sands’ last days on earth and McQueen managed it. Shame is an entirely different kind of story though and I think McQueen needed to take a chance here and bring us a more critical eye, or perhaps a more benign one, I’m not fussy. Any kind of commentary would have been welcome.

Like in Hunger, Fassbender’s nymphomaniac exists without any context or motivation. He is an empty vessel, waiting to be (ful)filled. We never get a sense of who he is beyond his addiction and we never… get beyond his addiction. There are some excellent and moving scenes with Mulligan but there’s a tendency to stifle the emotion. Which is, ostensibly, the perogative of the character but as a viewer it merely leads to frustration.

It’s also, probably, worth mention that this is an 18 rated movie and, as you would expect, is rife with relatively explicit scenes of a sexual nature. His hypersexuality is depicted time and time again, to the point that it gets quite boring. I imagine perhaps this is the point… however, it still means you’re boring your audience.

It is, therefore, a shame. Shame, because I think that there’s a lot more in the story that could have been explored. Shame, that Fassbender’s fantastically nuanced performance lies flat in a film that seems content to pinwheel around random meaningless encounters. And lastly, Shame, because I had to sit through another movie where Carey Mulligan seems intent on maintaining her 70:30, crying to not-crying, ratio of screen time.

I feel like I’m being unecessarily harsh. There were things I liked about it… I liked how it looked. There were some nice shots, I particularly liked the running scene. I liked the music… I didn’t actually hate the film. Fassbender gives us a perfect, outsider sense of who Sullivan is at this point in his life. As a portrait of a man, it is crystalline. You feel his torment in his eyes, in the lines of his face… But there’s just nothing there at the core. I don’t know what this film was trying to say to me… All I can say is… Why?

And don’t get me started on the ending. I was truly riled by the ending. I’m not going to give it away but I could probably write another few paragraphs on what was wrong with the 5 mins or so of the film…

… Sorry, I just had to get that in there.

5.5/10

I never thought I’d like this film. For some reason I’ve just never liked Darren Aronofsky’s films. I’ve seen all of his features, probably the only director I can say that about, and they’ve always left me cold and indifferent. I actually went on-air on Phantom 105.2 once to specifically argue that Requiem for a Dream was an over-rated and incredibly simplistic piece of crap.

The truth is, I had pretty much resigned myself to the fact that I was never going to like this (for some reason unknown to me) much celebrated director. Yet still, I went along to Black Swan with a modicum of hope. Mainly because I liked the arty posters… What can I say? I like to try and see something positive in everything.

And I’m glad I did. I loved Black Swan. The story of a person struggling in the pursuit of perfection is one that I, and I think a lot of people can relate to. Darren Aronofsky finally managed to create something that he always lacked, a character which people could empathise with. I, for one, have always seen his films as more an eye on a world that I wasn’t a part of, rather a look at a world I lived in, he never gave me a reason to become in any way involved in his characters or stories.

But perhaps that was just me. I know that a lot of people were moved by The Wrestler and Requiem for a Dream… but I’ve always felt that his characters were too simply drawn. He has, in some films more obviously than others, always dealt with the idea of addiction but in my opinion he’s never brought us the reality. Addiction isn’t simple, people aren’t simple.

Not that Aronofsky’s films are simple, they’ve always been ambitious in terms of the emotions he’s tried to convey but at the centre he’s always had, what I would consider as, characters with a single purpose. To bring the narrative to its inevitable tragic conclusion. You don’t know why exactly they’re on this road or why they don’t choose to take a turn off, all you get to see is that they just keep driving.

In Black Swan, Natalie Portman is a woman who ached for success and Aronofsky created a world and a struggle that was… realistic. Every day people feel the pressure live up to what’s expected of them, be it by their parents or co-workers, partners, friends or just society. Who among us has never thought, maybe I’m just not good enough? This is the question that Portman’s Nina fights with and Aronofsky makes her subtle and complex enough to guide us through her torturous path of trying to answer it.

However, to be less abstract. Yes, there is a strong central theme but it’s nothing if you don’t have solid building blocks around it. Portman excels as Nina, her breakdown into paranoia is etched on her body as is her desire and yearning to push past it and reach that pinnacle of perfection. Her Oscar was richly deserved. The supporting characters in Mila Kunis and Vincent Cassel were no less impressive, but it was Portman that was the star.

Broader again, I loved how Aronofsky wove the horror elements into the film. Undoubtedly this is part of the reason I enjoyed Black Swan as much as I did, and far more than any of his previous endeavours. That said, I don’t think he relied on or overused too many of the tropes of horror. There were one or two that were a little blindingly obvious but the way he used them was such that it complemented the drama he was creating. Black Swan is not a horror film, despite what some people have said. It’s a psychological thriller through and through.

As I mentioned earlier, Aronofsky’s films have always been complex in the emotions they’ve grasped at and Black Swan is no exception. The crescendo of the film, in a way, terrified me, it certainly unsettled me and the film stayed with me long after I left the theatre. It was refreshing in that sense. There are so many films out there that aren’t ambitious, that are just throw away entertainment. Black Swan, while perhaps not an important film… is a lasting one. This deserves to be a classic simply because it’s a genre film that’s so well realised.

I kind of see Black Swan as a perfect storm in terms of film-making. Aronofsky’s cold stylings suited the story on offer here. I’ve always felt a detachment off the characters in his films. It’s the biggest problem I had with The Wrestler, I never felt or believed the relationships between Mickey Rourke and Marisa Tomei and Evan Rachel Wood. Darren Aronofsky directing a story in which our main character is slowly becoming more detached, from those around her and from reality, makes perfect sense.

Because of that though, I wonder if I’ll ever enjoy another Aronofsky film. Perhaps he’s made the film he was always meant to make and that’ll be it now. I’ll end up sitting through another 10 features from the guy, hoping that he’ll reach that height again and I’ll always be disappointed… Hmm…

That’s probably enough for now. What did you think yourself? What was your top film of 2011?

9/10

Of course, as I had mentioned in the post with clips and trailers of Breaking Dawn, I was kind of looking forward to this film. Not looking forward like, I was planning to see it at the first possible screening though. More like, I thought I’d give it a look on DVD. Oh well, what’s done is done.

Needless to say, I hadn’t been expecting much. Even though I thought Eclipse was alright, I wasn’t expecting anything – New Moon was that bad. Seriously, nothing happened in that movie. Nothing at all. For shame.

As it happens, Breaking Dawn is actually ok as well. Ok, not great. Or good. Just, ok. In all honesty, my biggest, biggest problem with the Twilight series is Kirsten Stewart. The girl can’t act. It’s a crying shame really because this, and Eclipse, would probably be good films if there was anything believable about Bella and Edward. Also – and it wouldn’t be an issue if the characters didn’t keep saying it – she’s just not that pretty. Every time they say it, which is more often than you’d think necessary, I wince. Really? I mean really?

The worst thing is that because she is so bad, it colours the entire series. I don’t understand what on earth Edward Cullen is meant to see in her. Except I suppose the point that he sees nothing in her, can’t tell what she’s thinking etc… Surely the possibility has occurred to him though that perhaps there’s nothing going on in there? Urgh.

And Jacob? What’s his excuse? I gather there might be something in the next film that explains that but I’ve still had to put up with 4 films of nonsense. And why is Edward so ok with her and Jacob? She even kissed him in the last film! That’s pretty much cheating in my book. He should’ve at least been a bit more pissed off. Is it supposed to be because he knows that Bella really and truly loves him? How can he tell? She doesn’t act like it.

But back to the film at hand. The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – part 1. Bit of mouthful. Apart from the massive problem of the relationship still being entirely unbelievable, it’s relatively reasonable. I would hesitate to say it is well paced – there’s a rather lengthy part of the film which, as far as I could tell, was only conceived so that Bella and Edward could kiss in front of varying colourful backdrops, but aside from that painful 20 minutes, it moves along quite well. Stuff happens, the plot moves forward, it’s a marked difference from the first two films. The action and CGI is even relatively decent, the wolves look good compared to how they did in the earlier films – oh, well… I just remembered the ridiculous talking wolves scenes, let’s forget that happened. *shiver*

One of the things I really liked about the film is that it’s quite funny in parts. Genuinely funny. I would have liked more of that. I think it also helped my enjoyment that Kristen Stewart didn’t do much for a lot of the film, what with being quite sick carrying her demon child. Jacob continues to be the star performer in the series. It helps that he has more to do than anyone else, but he does that angry broody thing well. I hope he gets a chance to be a real actor after this.

The fact is, it’s really not as bad as it’s being made out to be. There isn’t anything in it that’s offensively bad (aside from Stewart). The story is pretty interesting tbh. The stuttered attempts to make Twilight more mature are, for the most part, successful; the honey part of the ‘moon was dealt with particularly well. Other parts, were… perhaps alluded to more than dealt with…

I’m surprised there wasn’t more about… not having the child. You know, since they were all pretty sure it was a demon who was killing her from the inside out. The films’ seem to have quite a conservative agenda in the sense – no sex before marriage, it’s a baby not a fetus etc. I guess they didn’t want to dwell on that aspect, it is a young adult film after all. It could have made for interesting debate though. Oh well.

It’s hard in a way to point at the things I didn’t like about the film. I guess it’s just because the core of the story is so rotten to me, it makes it a bad apple. Everything that happens is… fine but… Yes, I think it’s just that… how do I describe it…? They’re very bitty films. The cast is so large and it’s so full of small roles that it feels like the film expects you to fill in the blanks in the characters – all the characters. Except that I don’t know any of the characters. Who are these people? What are their motivations? Why am I watching this film? It’s a very haphazard watch.

Except for the end. The end was pretty good, including the bit during the credits. It kinda looks like the next film might have some interesting stuff going on. In fact, during the end credits all I could think was, why couldn’t this be the starting point? You could have summed up these last 4 films in a long pre-credit sequence and done a few films on what happens next – that looks like a story worth watching.

6/10

For clips and trailers of The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – part 1 have a look over here.

]]> http://www.averagefilmreviews.com/2011/11/review-the-twilight-saga-breaking-dawn-part-1/feed/ 2 http://www.averagefilmreviews.com/2011/10/review-anonymous-2011/ http://www.averagefilmreviews.com/2011/10/review-anonymous-2011/#comments Tue, 25 Oct 2011 23:49:00 +0000 Nicola-t http://www.averagefilmreviews.com/?p=5906 I’ve never been a poet.

I waffle about films here on this site but I’ve never actually thought about the structure of prose, never mind spared a thought for the rhythm of writing. Like most people I know, I had to read poetry in school but I don’t think I’ve ever read poetry for pleasure.

It follows that, for me, Roland Emmerich was probably the perfect person to make a film about the most famous poet and playwright of them all… William Shakespeare.

My knowledge of Shakespeare is… forgive the pun, shaky. I had to read a few of the plays in school. I liked King Lear, I have a vague memory of The Taming of the Shrew. I can’t remember any of the other ones. Oh, wait, I remember I liked the movie version of A Midsummer Night’s Dream. I’m aware of many of his works but I know little about the man himself. I certainly wasn’t entirely aware that there was any real controversy over who he was.

Now, I’m sure there’s already someone reading this thinking –

“But there isn’t any real controversy! Ronald Emmerich is just giving credence to a crazy fringe theory!“.

Well, maybe he is… but like it or not Anonymous is bringing that fringe theory to the masses and that’ll make the controversy real in some people’s minds. Personally, I don’t know enough about Shakespeare or 16th century political and social history to have any opinion about it at all, beyond this – Who knows what really happened back then, and does it really matter that much?

Course, that is the crux of the problem I always have when greeted with a film that paints itself in any historical colours. I never ever know what’s real and what’s not. It makes me feel stupid. I can either accept that it’s all fiction or spend ages later trying to pick apart the true history. Which will invaribly lead to opposing viewpoints, all of which will oddly come up sparse when answering the criticisms of the other.

I decided to view Anonymous as a kind of an alternate history film. Which I think is fair. And to be fair to the film. I don’t think it pushes the “Was Shakespeare a fraud?” thing as far as it could have. It is, after all, a Ronald Emmerich film and I think he’s tried to keep it quite accessible. I didn’t feel like I was being proselytised at. It’s just a film about a guy, and some other guys. I suppose it really depends on how you look at it. It is, technically, a biography of the person who they are presenting as Shakespeare, but that’s not the same as an argument in my book. It’s not evidence, it’s just a story.

In case you were wondering. I liked it. I wasn’t particularly expecting to. I’ve always enjoyed Emmerich’s films on a very basic level. I continue to be in awe of the fact that he brought to the big screen, the scene where a plane flies under a train that was falling through mid-air as the world collapsed around them. That was some kind of genius. But nothing in his other films that I’ve seen ever suggested that he could make a good drama using, you know, plot and dialogue.

I would even go so far as to say it was very good. I thought it was strong political drama, complete with back-stabbing, illicit romance and moral ambiguity. Sure, the intrigue was a little outlandish and unbelievable, but then again it always is. There are always the broadstroke heroes and villains in politics, even as every political film tries to make us see that even noble men have to get dirty sometimes. Of course, we can’t believe them. Whatever happens, you always have to choose one over the others… But I disgress.

In addition to, what I thought was a strong plot and good pacing and scripting, there was the overall production. I think that’s what I enjoyed most about this film. It is a gorgeous looking film. The costumes were fantastic, the stagecraft of the plays put on in the film was amazing. Now yes, this is a movie, but it didn’t look as though there was much, if any, trickery involved. Indeed, they did apparently build a full scale replica of The Rose theatre for the film so, perhaps it was real. It managed to bring the era to life, even if it did look a bit cleaner than things probably were back then.

I thought the performances were generally strong as well. Rhys Ifans was excellent. He’s never impressed me before, I always thought he was a bit one-note… but this kind of, slightly melodramatic role, suited him. There was a sadness in his eyes that suggested more skill than I had previously given him credit for. Fair play.

Joely Richardson and Vanessa Redgrave also shone in their joint portrayal of Queen Elizabeth I. They and Ifans even managed to elicit a couple of tears from me…. I may have just been in the mood though.

Sebastian Armesto (playing Ben Jonson) on the other hand seemed to be suffering from a touch of the Batman voice at the start. He was more than a little out of his depth in those first scenes, but he managed to get it on track.

If I am to criticise at all, then I have to be honest – following all the different names was a bit confusing at the start. All the noblemen seemed to have three names. Which I suppose they did, their title, their family name and their first names, but it was more than a little annoying. The on-going mental cataloguing was distracting and jarred me out of the film. That’s small criticism though… if you want to really criticise there’s the biggie…

I had a quick look at the list of historical inaccuracies on Wikipedia article. There are plenty of things out of place. Surprise, surprise.

Honestly though, I really don’t think it matters. Believing exactly what you see in a film is the same as believing whatever some crackpot on the street tells you without question. I don’t think film-makers have any responsibility to make historically accurate films and, given that they are generally out to either, make the film they want to make and/or entertain the masses, you can’t expect them to feel any. If you want to know the truth then go and try to find some primary or secondary source material.

Your local multiplex is not, generally, a place of learning.

7/10

]]> http://www.averagefilmreviews.com/2011/10/review-anonymous-2011/feed/ 0 http://www.averagefilmreviews.com/2011/10/review-red-state-2011/ http://www.averagefilmreviews.com/2011/10/review-red-state-2011/#comments Tue, 04 Oct 2011 13:15:12 +0000 Nicola-t http://www.averagefilmreviews.com/?p=5454 Strange, strange, strange.

I have to admit, I wasn’t expecting to like Red State. I liked the trailer but I’m not particularly a fan of Kevin Smith; I can still smell Cop Out from here… then again, I did really like Zack and Miri Make a Porno and I thought Chasing Amy was kind of interesting. So maybe I shouldn’t have been so apprehensive.

I guess the big issue was that, a lot has happened since Zack and Miri and I just wondered, is he really up to making a good movie? I mean, it looked like a cool horror film and I liked horror but… I am so often disappointed by horror as well that there just seemed no point to being properly excited.

As a result… and likely as a direct result, I really quite enjoyed Red State. It’s not the finest piece of drama I’ve ever seen, nor is it the funniest comedy, but there’s was just something about it. It had an idea behind it. Now, it was a pretty simple and obvious idea – to make extremist Christians and federal goverment organisations look stupid – but it was relatively well thought out and that’s more than I can say for some horror films. Ok ok, that’s not fair, I’m simplifying, but the point is it tried from something a bit more than a slasher film.

In case you haven’t seen the trailer – and I won’t go beyond what you see in the trailer – Red State starts off with 3 high schoolers boy being lured with the promise of sex, to the compound of an extremist Christian group. Next thing you know, the ATF show up and all hell breaks loose – Waco style. You can see the various trailers in my clips and trailer: Red State post if you fancy a look.

The big thing that surprised me about the film, especially after the trailer, is that Red State isn’t a horror film at all. It’s… hmm…. I can’t really put it in a genre. That’s what’s interesting about it. Kevin Smith really does seem to try and do something new here. Unfortunately for him, he just can’t quite seem to get it right. There’s a lot wrong with this film. A lot wrong. That’s not say that you shouldn’t see it. But be warned…

First issue is… the dialogue between the teens, ably played by Kyle Gallner, Michael Angarano and Nicholas Braun, is some of the worst I’ve ever heard. Now, I never really notice swearing, honestly I don’t, and it doesn’t particularly offend me, but you couldn’t help but notice it here. These kids talked for twice as long as they should have with all the swearing. Seriously. A bit is fine. Some is fine. This was excessive. This was just stupid. Nobody talks like that.

Secondly the film is very inconsistant. It seems as though it’s trying to appeal to a teen audience at some points, a gore crowd at others, the arthouse audience along the way and just a broad cinema audience at times. It skips all over the place, never quite managing to focus or develop properly in any direction. It’s frustrating.

There are some other specific weak points that will test the audience. There’s a monologue from Parks which went on about 5 minutes too long and there’s one girl who’s just terrible. The sooner she was off the screen the better. It can’t be escaped though that the main problems are in the script and direction. Small niggling points like those can be ignored if the film hung together better.

To be honest, it’s just a shame, because I think there are flashes of greatness. Michael Parks and Melissa Leo put in some great performances and, as I mentioned, the teens (?) are relatively decent – shame about the dialogue. It’s also quite a fearless film in many ways, possibly borne of the… situations… Kevin Smith has found himself in recently. I just wish that… I think that… it just needed someone else to step in and reign him in.

Anyway, I do think Red State is worth a look. I wouldn’t call it some kind of return to form, or say that it shows Kevin Smith as the brilliant film-maker we know he can be. Hell, I never thought he was much of a film-maker anyway. But do go along and see it, or pick it up on DVD when it comes out. It’s not going to be a massive waste of your life. It can’t be really, it’s quite short.

6.5/10

]]> http://www.averagefilmreviews.com/2011/10/review-red-state-2011/feed/ 3 http://www.averagefilmreviews.com/2011/04/review-sucker-punch-2011/ http://www.averagefilmreviews.com/2011/04/review-sucker-punch-2011/#comments Mon, 04 Apr 2011 00:22:16 +0000 Nicola-t http://www.averagefilmreviews.com/?p=4191 You remember when I said the trailer for Sucker Punch had everything but the kitchen sink in it? Yeah. Turns out the kitchen sink was sense.

This was not as phenomenal a mess as The Spirit but it did have a few extra touches of outlandishness that only Zack Snyder is brave enough to throw at us. I’ll talk about them later.

You might be assuming now that like many other critics, I hated Sucker Punch. I didn’t hate Sucker Punch. I actually thought it was a bit of a laugh. I think that’s partly because I had the good fortune of seeing the Rotten Tomatoes score before hand. I had my suspicions about the trailer and they were fairly confirmed by the flood of reviews that came out after the press screenings around the world. Let’s be clear, I thought it was a great trailer and I was looking forward to it… but at the same time I thought it was promising a lot. I just didn’t really quite believe that he could pull off everything in the trailer and still manage to run a consistent and engaging narrative. And he didn’t. So… not entirely a surprise…

First up, let’s talk about how it looks. It looks great. I think it’ll probably look better on BD/DVD – I think there may have been something wrong with the projector/print at the viewing I saw it at – but the effects still looked class. Also I thought the action sequences were good! I know some people have said they were a bit samey and a bit too computer gameish. I didn’t think so. Well, I don’t play computer games so it’s no odds to me if it was – I thought they looked cool and I also thought the girls were convincingly ass-kicking when required. Which was very little for some of them but no worries.

There wasn’t really much else to the film. It was so all over the place that you couldn’t care about following what was going on. Not that it was difficult but you had to wonder if there was meant to be some regard for anything more than the action scenes. There was some half assed attempt to string it all together with some voice over but I stopped paying attention to that after a while because it sounded like gibberish. I’d appreciate a transcript of it if anyone has it though. I wouldn’t mind reading through and trying to work out if the VO was actually trying to make a point. You’d never know, maybe it was as important as it was trying to sound… I kinda liked the idea of the VO being psychobabble, the film was about a mental institution so it was appropriate. In fact…

… There’s part of me that wants to believe that Sucker Punch was all a big subversive comment on institutionalisation or something*, I really really almost do. In fact I think I do, since I didn’t hate it… but there’s another part of me that thinks “Nah, that’s unlikely”. I don’t listen to that part though. I’ve only let it come out to give balance to this paragraph.

Unfortunately, even if you believe the subversive commentary thing, it’s still not brilliant. It may be fun but it manages to throw in some real clunkers of ideas. I mean that fifth thing that they mention in the trailer… Really? What? And please, please, Mr. Snyder, spare us from your musical counterpoint. Seriously man. It was jarring enough in Watchmen but your choices here were embarrassing. They were great songs, but honestly, you cannot play Where is My Mind when someone is being taken into an asylum. You just can’t do it, it’s ridiculous. If it was a once off I could almost accept it but then you hit us with Army of Me… I say Oi! Snyder! No!

I haven’t really said much about what was good about it. Basically. Like I said, I thought it was fun. Aside from the action sequences; I liked that guy that Scott Glenn was playing. He had some great lines, I loved that quote “If you stand for nothing, you’ll fall for anything”, it was used so randomly, hilarious – where does it come from anyway? And the non action sequences were fine too, they swept the plot along fast enough.

The only thing that really annoyed me about it, bit of a spoiler here, is that [I still can't believe he never showed us Emily Browning dancing at all but oh well, I won't get too caught up about it. It was annoying though. Come on.]. (highlight between the square brackets to read text)

Anyway, I’m gonna leave it there for now. If you want to give out to me for liking it, fire away. As always, I welcome the chance to talk about the film in the comments section.

6/10

* = maybe if I’d paid attention to the VO I would know what that something was.

]]> http://www.averagefilmreviews.com/2011/04/review-sucker-punch-2011/feed/ 0