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

I wish he hadn’t.

Haywire is a truly bizarre piece of film-making. It’s as though a rabid jazz fan decided to make an arthouse action flick. I don’t understand why this film happened. At all. I did not enjoy the experience of watching this experiment and I do not want to see one again.

Thing about the film is, it’s not that Soderbergh is a bad director. It’s like Contagion in that sense. It looks good, the acting is… acceptable. It’s just… not a good film. I have no doubt in my mind that Soderbergh has made the film he set out to make, I just don’t know why he made the choices that he made. At every turn there is, what I think is, a mistake.

I’ll start with the score. There are large swathes of the movie with no music at all, we’re just left with silence and the occasional burst of ambient noise. Which is fine. Except all at once this random, jazzy, elevator type music will start up. I don’t know how I’m supposed to feel about this. The music neither takes it’s cue or gives a cue as to what’s happening on screen at any time. There is a long action sequence near the start where you hear nothing at all but this weird tinkling jazzy music – all kinds of, quite frankly, mad stuff, is going on on-screen and all we hear is… music. No shouting, no conversing, no effects at all. Why?

The cinematography was similarly strange. Vast parts of the movie look like they were shot in ambient light. To the extent that it’s hard to make people out from time to time, and I don’t mean because they were hiding in shadows. As a result there’s quite a dull palette on offer here – browns, greys, blacks and the occasional hint of blue. That’s pretty much it. It doesn’t make for an exciting watch.

Not quite the same but similar was the camera work itself. It’s not that it’s particularly shaky, a pet hate of mine. It’s that, at times – especially when Carano is running around – the camera is all over the place. Swooping over her head, swinging around a corner, poking her in the eye. Sometimes there’s a long shot, just for the craic it would seem. I don’t know what effect they were trying to achieve… It’s as though they’d heard somewhere that your camera should get involved in the action but they weren’t sure what it meant. It was just confusing.

And while we’re on the subject of confusing… the plot. I don’t want to give anything away but there really seemed to be a lot of convolution for convolutions sake. I’m actually still not entirely sure where we finished up on everyone. It doesn’t matter though. I don’t care and I don’t think they did either. This picture was about ass kicking. Which brings me on to…

… The script. I’d almost forgot the script. Easy thing to do since there wasn’t much of one. Most of the dialogue was functional. Generally it seemed to just serve to get Ms. Carano from one reason to kick someone’s ass to the next.

It was as though the whole thing was a pastiche of a ’70s action film, or worse still, a pastiche of a Quentin Tarantino pastiche of a ’70s film. Except for a scene where a camouflage faced Carano stares into a fire in the darkness, the light flickering on her face. That’s when I thought, maybe he’s going for the early ’80s?

It’s hard to find anything to like about this movie but I will say this one thing. Gina Carano sure can kick ass. Of course, being a professional MMA fighter, you’d hope she could. That element of the film was relatively satisfying. Compared to what you’d usually see in films, these fights looked very realistic. They weren’t a blur of fists and quick cut camera work, so that was nice. They also sounded realistic. I’m not sure if that was a good thing though, we’re used to the more snappy side of foley artistry for fist fighting so it sounded a bit deadened to my ears.

The rest of the surprisingly stellar cast were also good, Michael Douglas played his role with remarkable aplomb, considering he was only in it sparingly. Antonio Banderas, Ewan McGregor, Michael Fassbender and even Channing Tatum got on board when they were needed. I also wanted to single out Bill Paxton as well, as her father. Nice to see him around, albeit briefly.

Oh, there’s also some amusement to be had from the fact that it’s filmed in Dublin. It’s kinda cool to see the streets you walk every day in a movie. Even if I throughly disliked the movie.

The fact is, friends, this isn’t the film that it could or should have been. I don’t know why Soderbergh decided to make it in this fasion, but I think that Carano actually has a chance at being an action hero. Unfortunately films like this aren’t going to do her massive favours. It’s not the worst film I’ve ever seen (which one friend of mine exclaimed after the screening) but it certainly looks like an early contender for one of the spots near the bottom… She gonna need something with a little more pizzazz to get the audience to notice her.

Around the time of Contagion, Soderbergh announced that he was planning to take some time out from film-making to work on his painting… Here’s hoping. Maybe he’ll come back fresh and reinvigored rather than churning out sad facsimiles of genre films.

3.5/10

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

In Time is set in a world where time has literally become money. Each child is born with 1 year in the wallet (a glowing set of figures on their arm) and at the age of 25 they stop ageing and start spending the money on their clock. Time can be earned and spent and when it runs out, poof, you’re dead.

It sounded like a potentially fascinating setting for a film. Unfortunately, with In Time, Niccol has wasted the concept. It actually starts off reasonably strong, I’ll spare you the details but basically JT is a lowly factory worker, working to his last minutes every day. One night he comes across a mysterious stranger who, for relatively interesting reasons, gives him a lot of money. I liked that, there were myriad directions to go in with that idea… and that’s the problem.

This film has no idea what it’s trying to say. Time is money. Great. Money brings you time. Cool. Now what? Apparently “what” is a “cat and mouse game” brought about by a ridiculous misunderstanding. Which develops into some kind of a bloodless Bonnie & Clyde caper. Somewhere, somehow, I think they were trying to make some commentary on society, but it was hard to tell as they desperately tried fabricate a whole bunch of unnecessary villans while throwing in a few scenes where we could appreciate how good-looking the leads were.

It really just didn’t know how to stick the knife in… if indeed that’s what it was trying to do. What we’re left with is bits and pieces of ideas. They’re obviously trying to make a comment on banks and the current economic situation, but then they seemed to get scared of it. They danced around, having a peek at it, then backing away and bringing the film back into its (weak) characters. And the heist stuff, that could have been fun, but they had no time, no time. And what about Cillian Murphy’s timecop? He could have been quite the character… but we had to go take a wander down thug town for no reason. This film could have been fascinating and insightful, I mean that time is money is a good strong concept. But no. It was not to be.

Ahh… to be honest I don’t really want to go to hard on it. You might like the fact that it’s quite light for such a lofty concept. I didn’t but then I am quite the sci-fi fan and dystopia is my fiction of choice. So really, this movie just spit at me. I mean, don’t get me started on how messy the actual mechanics of using money is in this society. Really. It’s just, it makes no sense. It kills me a little.

Oh, if you’re wondering if JT can act, he’s ok. Nothing to write home about. Following up The Social Network with a couple of comedies was a good idea but he’ll have to work a bit harder on the next one if he wants to get any respect.

I suppose the main problem I had was that, the stranger and his motivations at the beginning had made the film seem quite ambitious, but in the end it turned completely away from that. I just hope that some time, in the future, someone takes the “time is money” thing and actually runs with it. It could even be Niccol again if he promises to make a proper movie with it. I love his aesthetic but… Why? Why did he do this?

5/10

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

Those of you who know me will know, I’m not exactly a reader… but even I’ve heard of John le Carré’s Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. I couldn’t tell you why though, just that – in my head – it’s an extremely famous and highly acclaimed spy novel.

With a class title.

Maybe that’s why I remember it so well.

In any case, I was looking forward to this film. Lordi know I was never going to read the book. Also, the anticipation was helped by the fact that Colin Firth is in it. If you read my Oscar predictions post this year or my review of A Single Man then you’ll know that I think he’s pretty damn fantastic.

The rest of the cast was impressive too, Gary Oldman, John Hurt, Tom Hardy (who really stood out for me in Inception), Mark Strong, Ciarán Hinds. As was the first trailer I saw, I thought it looked… uncompromising. It’s not that I’m sick of films that pander to the audience and try to make things extra easy for them. I’m a big fan of the average, the clue’s in the title people! It’s just that I thought it might be nice to see a film that didn’t.

It turns out Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is absolutely uncompromising. It’s got an inherently complex story to tell you in a limited amount of time and if you can’t keep up well then… sucks to be you. It’s an interesting way to go.

As a result I wasn’t entirely sure what I thought of it when I walked out of the theatre. My first thought was… well, that was great… but no-one’s gonna go see it. I mean that in the sense that, you need word of mouth to sell a film to a wide audience and even though I really liked it, I don’t know that I’d tell anyone I know to see it. Not because I don’t think they’ll follow it or because I think they won’t appreciate it. I just don’t know how entertaining it was.

It’s like, solving a puzzle. Ok, in practical terms it is literally watching someone else trying to solve a puzzle… but it’s a bit more than that. It’s like you have to solve the puzzle of how they are solving the puzzle. They have all the pieces and they’re trying to put them together – but you have to work out what the pieces are in order to see how they’re putting them together.

Does that make sense? I think it does.

Anyway, this all means that, in the end… when you’ve worked out what all the pieces were and you’ve seen them put them together, it’s very satisfying. But was it fun?

I guess that depends on how much you like puzzles.

In any case, like I said, I really liked it.

I think.

No, really, I did. Honestly, there are excellent performances all around. Also, it looks great. It’s directed by Tomas Alfredson and, together with his cinematographer, Hoyte Van Hoytema from Let The Right One In, they have managed to create a mood… a pervasive feeling of urgency in every scene. You feel like, perhaps, there is some meaning in everything you can see in every place the film takes you. Or perhaps there isn’t. It’s all part of the puzzle.

I think that’s why I liked it. I never felt as though I was watching filler, padding to pass the time and confuse me. Whether everything we were presented with was relevant to the hunt or not (maybe it was? maybe it wasn’t?) it all felt like it -could- be important. I also liked that it didn’t bother to talk down to audience; that, if it did explain the language or terminology, it didn’t feel like it was done for our benefit, it was natural.

I think what I liked the most was that the… unravelling of the answer, the unfurling of the characters, was enough to hold interest, to move us along with the story. It didn’t need to be flashy, it’s not slick and shiny, dazzling us into admiring the pretty pictures as they danced before our eyes. It is a solid story, well told by a good director with a strong team and an excellent cast. What more do you need?

The one criticism I will make of it though, is that it’s very… dry. Which is not necessarily a bad thing… but, I suppose it lacks any levity to it. Which is a reason I would hesitate to recommend it to all. Not there should be comic relief, not that I expected it, but that, I don’t know, I feel like some audiences might need it?

I don’t know if I can make any other criticism of it. Since I haven’t read the book I don’t know any more than what I was told in the film. I don’t know if anything is missing. I have to imagine that some might say that it felt a bit rushed. After all, naturally you have to condense when adapting a book, and it was also a 7 part BBC series, so I can only reasonably assume that some already familiar with the story might like to spend more time with some of the characters? I don’t know… maybe?

Not me though. I thought it was all very effective. It worked for me. If you do go and see it, do tell me if it works for you.

Oh, actually, I might mention one thing… there are a lot of flashbacks. That might be good to know if you’re going in blind.

8.5/10

… Then I didn’t hear about it again until it popped up on DVD this week. I figured, hey, why not?

I have to admit, I had low expectations… real low. I really didn’t like Open Water. But, to be honest, I’m actually glad I did bother in the end.

The Reef is a much more interesting film than that one. Written and directed by Andrew Traucki and starring a cast of unknowns… well to be fair, I have no idea if they’re known in Australia, but they’re unknown to me, it skips along at a jaunty pace. While I wouldn’t claim that I really felt for the characters, they were decent and likeable so you didn’t want to see them get eaten by an ol’ Great White. As I so often would in these types of films. Traucki even manages to throw in a bit of subplot which doesn’t feel tacked on for the sake of it. Definitely a cut above the usual.

Speaking of the shark, or sharks, they looked good! No cheapo special effects here. Those were real sharks and with them the film-maker managed to create some real tension. No mean feat in a film where you’re pretty sure you know what’s going to happen from the minute you look at the DVD cover.

All in all, it’s a good addition to the genre. Worth a look, and a bag of popcorn, if it appears in your local DVD store.

Hmm… this may actually be the shortest review I’ve ever done.

7/10

The Reef is out on DVD from 24th January 2011.

The Human Centipede really is a film whose reputation precedes it. Pretty much everyone who’s watched the trailer or read the synopsis seems to think it’s sick as hell. So, if you’re gonna think less of me just because I’ve watched a sick film or two, you should probably just stop reading now.

You can’t really talk about The Human Centipede without knowing the main thing about it. I can’t imagine there are many people who’ve heard of it who don’t know what it’s about. The poster gives you an idea anyway… Just in case you really haven’t heard though… it’s about this crazy German surgeon who has decided he wants to make a human centipede… That is, he wants to sew a few people together face to arse and see how they get on. Yeah… what a bastard. Naturally, I was curious. I’m a curious person and everyone’s reaction to the idea of the film seemed so extreme that I just felt like I had to see it for myself. You can’t rely on other people’s opinions on this kind of thing…

I guess there is one more thing to say, before I get on to actually telling you what I thought of the film…

What you make of it will entirely rest on whether you’ve seen many films that go out of their way to shock you, and what you thought of them. I guess I’m talking about the full range here, from great films like Antichrist to crappy plotless films like Monster Man or Hostel. If you can’t handle films like these then you’re probably just going to think that The Human Centipede is sick filth and should be banned.

If, on the other hand, you have no problem with those then you might just feel the same way about The Human Centipede as I do.

Which is to say that I thought it was rubbish. The best I can say about it is that there were some nice looking shots in it and the mad surgeon Dr. Heiter (played by Dieter Laser) was good at being a creepy bastard in a B grade horror. Beyond that it had no real redeeming features whatsoever.

You know what, I’m pretty much just gonna tell you about what happens in it. It’s too hard to tell you how crap it is without saying something about the plot… I’ll do ya a deal. I won’t give away the ending. Hope that’s enough.

Anyway, so it all starts badly with the two American girls on a road trip in Germany. Well it’s not the opening scene but it is where it all goes wrong. These were two of the worst acted, most annoying characters I’ve seen in a horror film recently. I guess I shouldn’t have let it get to me, the tourist girls in a horror film tend to be pretty annoying and generally cast for their looks. But I did let it get to me, they were awful. Awful.

In true horror cliché their descent begins with a flat tyre in the forest. All the while they whinge and shriek at each other about whether they should go outside, who they should call, what should they do next… At one point while they were lost in the forest, lamenting away loudly, I turned to my mate and said “I can’t wait till her mouth gets sewn to an arse”. I hated these girls. Fortunately they soon found their way to the surgeon’s house and they didn’t have much to say after that.

Aside from those two there’s a Japanese fella who the doctor kidnaps when he realises his previous acquisition won’t match the girls. Poor Katsuro doesn’t really have much to do except scream in Japanese, he’s not entirely sure what’s going on but the diagrams soon make it clear enough. Lucky for him he does get to head up the centipede. That definitely looks like the best place to be. He’s pretty much a non entity throughout the film – aside from briefly, near the end.

That’s pretty much it for the character introductions. Our victims are completely one dimensional.

Dr Heiter is actually comparatively interesting. In that he has a back story. He is very successful and well-regarded separator of conjoined twins. Good for him. Course, now he’s retired and has apparently gone crazy. It’s not entirely clear why he’s decided he wants to join people together but I assume it’s meant to be some reaction to his previous profession. There doesn’t particularly seem to be a sexual element to it anyway. Thank the lordi. As horrifically unpleasant as that added theme would have been, I’m even more glad because I really don’t think the writer / director or actors would have had the chops to pull it off.

Anyway, as I mentioned, this character was the one bright spot in the film. Dieter Laser is one scary bastard and he does manage to make the doctor believable as opposed to laughable. I shudder to think how much worse this film would have been without him. Ok, ok, he is a bit of a cartoon villain but he’s entertaining and it seems appropriate given what he’s up to.

The real problem with the film is that it really is just plain boring. Boring and stupid. Just one example – One of the girls tries to escape but, because she’s an idiot, as soon as she finds a way out of the doctor’s house, she decides to go back to her drugged up mate. It makes sense because she can obviously carry her and she knows the doctor is incapacitated… oh, no, wait. That’s not the case at all. There’s no reason to go back for her. We don’t even know if they’re good friends, all we saw of them previously was them bitching at each other in the forest. Whatever.

Then there’s the whole gore issue. So the doctor gets the girl back and after some explanation using some overheads, the operation can commence. Then it’s over. You barely see anything. Not that I particularly wanted to see a dude sew someone’s face to another person’s ass, I really didn’t, but from the reputation of the film I would have thought you’d see something. I guess it’s slightly gory here and there but nothing compared to most in the genre. What the hell has everyone been talking about? Honestly. Yes, it’s a manky idea but overall the film just isn’t particularly sick. It’s boring… BORING.

Then the director does the big reveal and there’s nothing left but to watch the doctor trying to train his new centipede. I thought it would become clear then why he’d done it… but no. Just for a laugh as far as I could tell. Pointless.

Ok, at the end there is, what I can only assume is meant to be a shocking climax with some cops and stuff. Personally I just thought the ending all felt a bit rushed which I guess was fine because I didn’t really give a crap any more. I was actually falling asleep a little at this point. It’s not really a bad ending but I didn’t feel the impact that the film was so obviously desperate to create with it. I can’t really think of what else to say about it. I was happy it was finally over?

The truth is The Human Centipede is badly conceived, badly scripted and badly acted film. It absolutely does not deserve the attention that has been paid to it. It’s just another crappy low budget horror film made by a guy who had one shocking idea but no concept of what to do with it. I do believe that people can make whatever shitty films they want to make, but if they put it out there it obviously means I can say whatever the hell I want about it… and I call no-talent hack on this one.

I’m gonna stop short of telling you not to see it. I know if you’re as curious about it as I was then everything I’ve just said won’t stop you. I’d heard it was crap before I saw and I still watched it… and I’m glad I did. I always think it’s worth finding out what the fuss is about. It’s just that in this case it really is much ado about nothing.

3/10

In case you’re wondering why it got a 3 rather than a 1. I’m giving it a 3 because, as I mentioned, there were some nicely shot scenes. Also there was one funny scene with another driver on the road in the forest. Also it did make me retch a little bit, so there was an element of job done – but that didn’t really have anything to do with the whole centipede thing. Oh yeah, and it was kind of funny seeing how, most of the time, they kept strategically placing limbs to umm… preserve the girls modesty.

“But ain’t it just a dude in a box for 90 mins?” I hear you ask. Well yes… But Rodrigo Cortés, Eduard Grau, Chris Sparling, the sound crew and, of course, Ryan Reynolds have conspired to make the most gripping movie about a guy in a box that you’re likely to see in a long time – I never like to say ever, forever is a long time.

Anyway. If you haven’t seen Buried yet I suggest you don’t actually read any more of this review. I am undoubtedly just about to build this film up a bit too much and I’d have hated it if that had happened to me. It should be up to you to make your mind up about such a singularly minded film as this one.

All I actually knew about it for the longest time was that it was about a guy in a box with a mobile and a zippo. Then, the day before, I ended up not being able to avoid a trailer and I found out that Reynolds was playing an American civilian truck driver called Paul Conroy who had been taken in Iraq during an ambush. I wasn’t entirely happy knowing that but I was glad when I watched the film, because well, at least I had some idea that it was about the war. So I guess it’s grand for ye to know as well.

Oh also, full disclosure, I’m not claustrophobic in any way. I’m not one of those people feeling suffocated at the trailer or by the mere concept of being buried alive. I mean I don’t think I’d like it, but it definitely doesn’t keep me up at night. So, I didn’t feel particularly claustrophobic watching Buried. It’s just not an issue for me. I guess it is for some people though, err… I can’t really comment on how you might feel about this film so.

But on with the review. In case you haven’t worked out. I loved it. For a little while I felt it was the best film of the year for me. Then I copped on to myself, after all, Toy Story 3 did come out this year as well. Still, I’ll go with Buried being the best completely original film of the year. And yes, I have seen Inception, twice.

Why, you ask? Well, to put it simply, I thought it was a most incredible feat of film-making. I probably haven’t talked about it recently but my favourite films, the ones at the very top of the pile for me, are the ones that have to be films… the stories that have to be seen, heard and felt, the ones where the film-makers take us to a place where you’re not merely being told a story, you’re believing it, because you can see it unfolding there in front of you. For me Buried is one of these films.

The ground rules on the whole phone thing are set early on, our friend Paul Conroy is trapped underground in a coffin with a mobile. He’s not buried so deep that he can’t get some coverage but it’s a bit patchy and his battery is running out so he can’t spend the whole time on the phone. Fair enough. I was a bit annoyed by some of the marketing things I did see about it though, the whole 90 mins of air thing and six feet under? Feels like someone popped them on the poster because it’s the kind of thing people expect. It doesn’t need that stuff.

To expand on the love of this film, I found it astounding that you could do so much with such a simple concept. I mean, it’s a film with a singular plot device and only one question that needs to be answered. How can you possibly make it compelling over 90 minutes? Well, I don’t really think he’s gonna win an Oscar for it but damn it, Reynolds works that box with his blood, sweat and tears to put you in there with him… and everyone else on the crew ratchets it up to 11 to make you believe it. Buried is intense and it’s hard going. There are moments of respite but I’ve never felt like I did at the end of this film. I felt like I’d been through the wringer… ok, I’ve felt awful at the end of some films, Grave of the Fireflies springs to mind, but I’ve never felt as emotionally exhausted as I did after this one.

Which is not to say that it’s a perfect film. It isn’t. There were a few things that annoyed me about it.

Couple of very small things first, I don’t think the dimensions of the box were entirely consistant and that niggled at me once or twice. Also, the first few minutes kind of annoyed me. I can only listen to a guy screaming and grunting in the dark for a limited amount of time. Fortunately it was fairly limited but it could have been more limited.

Secondly, while I absolutely and fully admire Ryan Reynolds for what he obviously went through and I couldn’t imagine anyone else in the role… I wasn’t blown away by his performance. When you add in the physical and the lighting aspect of it then yes, it’s brilliant… but the look in his eyes, the fear in his voice, I don’t know, maybe there could have been more there. Believe me I feel selfish for even mentioning, it’s a great performance, amazing, but it’s just what I thought at the end of it.

Finally, there’s one scene in it that, if I could go up to the projectionist box with a scissors and cut those few minutes out, I’d do it. Apparently it wasn’t even in the original script that went around a while back. I don’t see why they put it in. Honestly, I think it was just filling time. Completely pointless.

There’s a few other criticisms I’ve read about it. The whole “war” thing comes up obviously. Personally, I don’t think they were trying to make a massive political statement. It’s there, it’s plot thing, I didn’t find it particularly important. Also, some people just didn’t find it that engaging or involving. Ok. Different strokes and all that. I didn’t love The Town *shrug*

So, needless to say I recommend people go see Buried. Sure, not everyone will love it as much as I did, some people will probably hate it… but I do think that it’s a film that deserves to be seen, at least once.

9/10

Buried is in Irish cinemas from Friday 1st October 2010.

I have to admit, I don’t really know much about Martin Scorsese…

…I say things like that and people are all “What kind of a film buff are you??”. I’m not a film buff. I like watching films but I wouldn’t say I know any more than the average person (see what I did there). In fact when it comes to the “classics” I know less than most people. Ok, I’ve seen the likes of Citizen Kane (10/10) and Seven Samurai (8/10) but I’ve never seen The Godfather Trilogy or any Hitchcock films… but back to Scorsese…

I’ve seen a couple of his films. I liked Goodfellas enough; I thought The Departed was pretty decent, though I did prefer the original Hong Kong films*. Taxi Driver I wasn’t so pushed on – if I had been in my late teens / early 20s I might have thought it was a work of genius but as is was, I’m just not that angry any more. So anyway, it’s not like I was going to Shutter Island expecting something amazing.

Now it wasn’t AMAZING but it was very good. Far better than I had been expecting. It started off a bit ominously – I did not like the hysterical music at the start at all… but I think that was just a bit of a misjudgement. In general I thought the score was very good, atmospheric, I really thought it set the tone. I found the film an unsettling watch, which was completely unexpected, it’s very rare that I’d be put off kilter by a film.. In fact the last film was probably The Exorcist… and before that perhaps Se7en (which I saw in the cinema). Course, Criminal Minds freaks me out all the time… but that’s different, popcorn TV, I don’t think too hard about it after. Films are judged under a different light.

I do hope you go see Shutter Island, it’s a classic well-crafted thriller and there’s good performances all round. I suppose there is a chance that not everyone will like it. One friend of mine really seemed to hate it. I’m not really sure why but then I’m not that inclined to ask. I can see how, if you weren’t in the mood for it, you might find some of the more obvious devices very jarring. I didn’t and to be honest I don’t think the average person will either, there’s a lot for people to enjoy about this film if you just take it at face value. There’s more there too if you decide to look a bit harder at it but I don’t think that’s necessary to enjoy it at all.

I will say this though, I’m faintly worried by how surprised I was that it was a good film. It made me worry that I may have lowered my standards too much. Perhaps I expect so little now that anything good is impressive. As I’m sure you remember from other posts of mine – I go out of my way to expect nothing… perhaps I’ve been going a bit too far out of my way.

But that’s by the by, I’ll want to see a few more good films, like this one, before I start upping my expectations again. I think I’d get depressed if I started to expect good films; you need a buffer when you see as many films as I do…

8.5/10

* = I may not really be a film buff but for whatever reason I’ve seen more than a few HK/Korean/Chinese and Japanese films – usually gangster films and horrors