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

It turns out that he needs our help to distribute his new short film via a platform called Distrify. I’d never heard of it before so I decided to look into it.

What I found was that Distrify is a way for independent film-makers to make money distributing their films online. It’s a type of Direct to Fan (D2F) model and as far as I can tell, the big difference between Distrify and other most distribution models is that it incentivises the social aspect of watching films. The concept was dreamt up by film producers Peter Gerard and Andy Greene and they got funding in late 2010, so it’s a pretty new company and it looks like one worth supporting.

The gist of it is that, a film-maker makes his film available through Distrify for a fee and starts to shout about it around the place. When a person comes across the film they are given various options… The basic model is that they can watch the trailer and immediately rent the film and/or buy it, though other options are available. The difference with Distrify then is that, when a person shares the film, they are able to make a commission on anyone else who buys or rents it.

Course, you might share a film out of the goodness of your heart, but I think that being offered a commission makes you far more likely to do it. Plus, I’m sure there are plenty of independent film-makers out there who are pretty unlikely to get their films into a multiplex and are tired of putting their films up for free on YouTube and Vimeo. Plus if no-one’s linking to them over there, then no-one’s even going to be watching them. Distrify seems to be a way that a film-maker’s’ friends and fans can help in rewarding the hard work put into making films, while being helped a little themselves.

So that’s what I’m doing here. Terry Gilliam is one of my favourite film directors and he’s chosen to distribute his new short film The Wholly Family, about an American family in Naples, in this manner. For only €1.99, you can see his film in HD through the player below. You too can also share it via Facebook / Twitter or by e-mail.

Or rather, they want you to serenade your loved ones… yes. That’s more accurate. I’m sure they’d sing to you if you asked them to though. Well, maybe.

Anyway, obviously this is a little different from my usual posts. It’s a sponsored post but then I wouldn’t write about it if I thought it was crap.

In my life outside the site, I’m very interested in how companies are trying to do different things with social media and brand messaging. With this Serenade Your Date campaign, Heineken are doing just that.

For Valentine’s Day, Heineken have created a Facebook app that will allow you to send a personalised “serenade” to your hopefully-soon-to-be-more-than friend. You just pick Who, Why, What and Why Me and off it goes. Than you just have to hope they say yes.

They’ve also organised an 8 hour live global event called Serenade Live on 9th February which will be streamed on Heineken’s YouTube Channel. So yes, this is a pretty big deal. It sounds to me like one of the biggest social media campaigns going.

If you want to get involved, and you are over 18 (or whatever the legal drinking age in your country is) pop along to the Facebook Serenade Your Date app and give it a go. Don’t forget to also have a look at the live event on 9th Feb 2012 – things are kicking off at 6pm UK/IRL time.

sponsored post

Well folks, the wait is over. It’s finally here! Hmm… actually, it’s not really a trailer. It’s an announcement piece apparently. That seems like some kind of statement of intent to me. A trailer must soon be following.

As soon as we get another trailer or a clip or two I’ll start up a proper clips and trailers post, but for now you’ll just have to be content with this.

Yesireee, the Step Up guys are takin’ it to sunny Miami.

I am rather upset to see that Scott Speer is at the helm for this one rather than Jon M. Chu. Chu directed Step Up 2: The Streets and it’s surprisingly good follow up Step Up 3D. Unfortunately he seems to be working on G.I. Joe: Retaliation. Bigger and better things… I guess. Well bigger budget anyway.

That said, I’ll definitely be catching this one when it comes out. I know this means there may be something wrong with me but… what can I say? I do love a good dance movie so and Step Up 3D was hilarious fun, so… oh well.

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

The first thing I’ve found out is that it’s got a bit of a mauling in the press… but then that’s not something that I generally worries about. Some of my favourite films have been mauled by the press. Granted, they tended to be a bit heavier on the special effects and explosions, but hey. So what? Ok. I don’t know if this is really going to be my type of film, but with the Oscar nominations, I’ll definitely be checking it out.

Second was that, from the description on IMDb, it kinda reminds me of Hugo. I’m sure it’s nothing like Hugo but the kid looks a bit like him and if you look at the official summary below… and you leave out the September 11th stuff… it kinda does…

A nine-year-old amateur inventor, Francophile, and pacifist searches New York City for the lock that matches a mysterious key left behind by his father, who died in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

… there’s a kid who’s an inventor, and there’s a key, and a lock. And France. It kinda does.

Anyway, further digging proves that it’s nothing like it.

In Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close a young boy, played by Thomas Horn, finds himself on a scavenger hunt after coming across a mysterious key left by his father. Before his father was killed in the September 11th attacks it was an activity they had shared and, holding on to that memory, Oskar is compelled to investigate what the key means.

Presumably it has nothing to do with George Méliès. That’d just be weird.

RELEASE DETAILS

release date: 17 Feb 2012
director: Stephen Daldry
writers: Eric Roth (screenplay), Jonathan Safran Foer (novel)
cast: Thomas Horn, Tom Hanks, Sandra Bullock
genre: drama
running time: 129 mins

Official website: Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close @ WarnerBros.com
Official facebook page: facebook.com/extremelyloudandincrediblyclose

Anyway, you can read more about the film over on that post because what I wanted to highlight here was the YouTube competition that was organised around its release.

The concept was simple but it was pretty cool. They wanted to find the UK’s spookiest ghost story. They invited people from all over the UK to sumbit videos of their original ghost stories to The Woman in Black YouTube channel. Stories had to be under 2 minutes but the videos could be as simple as someone just making a recording from their phone’s camera. It was open to all ages but as far as I can see there was a rather youthful bent to the entrants.

Just before the Christmas the 10 finalists were announced, chosen on the basis of their story’s creativity, originality and writing style. Those 10 went to a public vote… The prize? The winner of the competition would get a trip to the world premiere in London but better yet their story would be read out by Daniel Radcliffe himself for inclusion on the DVD release of the film. Not bad hey?

Well, the competition was quite the success and it was great example of a company doing something a bit more original with social media to promote a film. I don’t know how many entries they got in total but there are 175 on their playlist on the official YouTube channel – youtube.com/thewomaninblackmovie. You can see all the competition entries over there but I’ve got the top 10 here for your viewing pleasure.

The winner in the end was Nicola Torch, a 16 year old from Lancashire, with her story entitled “Fear of Hue”, which you can see below. Congrats Nicola, hope you enjoyed the premiere and looking forward to seeing your ghost story on the DVD!

RELEASE DETAILS

release date: 10 Feb 2012
director: James Watkins
writers: Susan Hill (novel), Jane Goldman (screenplay)
cast: Daniel Radcliffe, Ciarán Hinds, Janet McTeer
genre: thriller, ghost story
running time: 113 minutes

Official website: www.thewomaninblack-movie.co.uk
Official facebook page: facebook.com/TheWomanInBlackUK
Official Twitter feed: @WomanInBlackUK

The Woman in Black YouTube ghost story competition finalists

Candy Bones by Paul Bristow
The Woman of the Graveyard by Lukas DiSparrow
The Treehouse by Holly Knowles
The Fall by littlemonkeygun
HACK by mothergoose8619
Cassie’s Ghost by Cinzialix
The Calming Mist by Alice
A Ghost Story by Natiekins
The Dead House by Jasmine Thorburn
Fear of Hue by Nicola Torch (winning entry)

See the rest of the competition entries over here.

Candy Bones by Paul Bristow

As usual, I’ll be doing an Oscar predictions post closer to the time but for now, as it seems to be becoming a tradition… I’ve done an Academy Awards 2012 A4 printable prediction ballot for you to fill out and do with what you wish. I’m not saying you should organise a pool amongst your friends or anything but like… you know, the form is handy for that type of thing…

This year I decided to redesign the Oscar prediction ballot form because I wanted to fit in more categories. It is still printable on 2 A4 sheets but I’ve kept the biggest categories on the first page so you can just not print the second if you want to keep it simple.

Feel free to send me your predictions as well, I am ever curious to know what other people think. You can e-mail your ballot form to nicola at averagefilmreviews dot com and if enough of you do I’ll announce the person who got most right on the blog on the 27th. I may even have a prize for the first entrant who gets all 21 right.

Anyway, to get the prediction ballot click the links below. I’ve done a pdf version this year as well. Oh, and I also put some tie breaker questions in for y’all.

DOWNLOAD THE WORD DOCUMENT HERE

DOWNLOAD THE PDF HERE

Actually, I didn’t know she had gone, I checked out of this franchise after the first film. Not that I’d hated it or anything. As far as I recall. I think it was just that I saw it around the same time as that disaster of a film, Van Helsing, and so I ended up staying away from vampire films for a while.

All I remember of the first Underworld was that Kate Beckinsale looked damn fine in the outfit and I wished I looked that good in skin-tight pants. So, as far as I can tell, little has changed in the intervening 9 years. She’s pushing 40 and still looking well. But that’s not being fair to the film at all, it has a lot more to offer than Beckinsale… There’s Michael Ealy and Theo James for the ladies as well. Ah no, I jest, there is more than that, I swear.

This is the first of the series to be directed by Swedish duo, Måns Magnus Mårlind (what a name!) and Björn Stein. The only other English language film the pair have directed was Shelter, starring Julianne Moore. I haven’t seen it, but with a whopping 0% on Rotten Tomatoes, I’m not exactly planning on picking it up.

With Shelter’s score in mind, I couldn’t help but wonder why Underworld: Awakening wasn’t screened for critics here. As we all know, this is rarely a good sign. Hence, I approached it with trepidation – and a 2 minute recap of the two films I’d missed from my cinema going partner. That trepidation was tempered by the fact that it’s an 18 cert film in Ireland and the UK. The Underworld franchise is hardly known for sex and nudity, so an 18 cert was bound to mean violence.

As it happened, I didn’t really need the recap. I remembered more of the first film than I thought and in any case there’s a short revisiting of the first three films at the start. With 3 years between films each time, I guess they’re used to having to bring the audience back up to speed quickly. The main thing you need to know is that in the last film, normal humans discovered the existence of the Lycans and Vampires. They were not happy about it.

So sets the stage for a “cleansing” of epic proportions.

I actually really enjoyed Underworld: Awakening. There’s always a lot to be said for having no expectations going into a film. I didn’t even know this film was out this week, that’s how in the dark I was. I wouldn’t go around saying it had the most amazing plot or performances… But, having already seen 4 out of the other 5 films out this week, I can say it’s probably the most entertaining of the week. Mind you, that’s still not saying much. I’ve only done the reviews of J. Edgar and Haywire so far, but you can take it from me that it’s a pretty poor week, Underworld 4 aside.

What’s most enjoyable about Underworld: Awakening is the action. With an 18 cert there’s no holding back. Selene kicks ass, and gets her ass kicked, from here to next Sunday with barely any let up. What let up there is is used to explain a perfectly serviceable plot. A rarity in a film like this these days. Recently action films seem to be struggling terribly hard with plots; unnecessary convolution is the order of the day. I can only assume they’re over-compensating out of a fear of being criticised for being too action oriented. I don’t know why they bother. People go to action films to see action. Right?

Anyway, with all the action on offer here, the target demographic should be satisfied. It’s worth mention as well that the 3D is pretty good. Ok, there are large parts of the film where you don’t need to wear your glasses, but it’s worth it for the parts where you do. Plus, it’s shot bright enough that you don’t have to worry about the type of murkiness that plagued The Darkest Hour. Of course… that’s not all that plagued The Darkest Hour, but that’s for a different review. You do still see that strange green hue you get with Real-D 3D glasses, but it actually suits the comic book stylings of the film so… it all works out really.

Some other reviews I’ve seen have criticised it as being a step away from the other 2 mythology-heavy sequels. Having never seen them, I have no idea if that’s true. Considering all 3 of the other Underworld films having come in for some fairly scathing reviews, I’m surprised they’ve decided to pick apart any changes.

As far as I’m concerned, if you’re looking for a glossy, 88 minute distraction with some good looking people being beaten every which way but loose… you could do much, much worse than Underworld: Awakening. This film is a bruised and bloodied hoot ‘n a half.

7/10

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