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

Well ok, that’s not a secret, I know I said it a couple of times on the ol’ twitter and I might have even mentioned it on the facebook page once. But I don’t think I ever said it here so, if you’ve never visited either of those spots, then now you know.

I think my problem with it was obvious enough… I mean… a movie about Facebook? Really? I just couldn’t see how a film about how a few *cough*nerds*cough* set up a popular website and then sued each other could be interesting. Seriously, what’s interesting about that?

Turns out there is a way you can make it interesting – by getting David Fincher to direct it, Aaron Sorkin to write the screenplay and Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross to do the score. And casting Justin Timberlake. Not that I’m mad interested in Justin Timberlake. I’m really not. But it was a pretty interesting move. Word is they cast him because of how they wanted people to see the guy, makes sense – you want your audience to think a certain way about a character as soon as they see them – cast someone that epitomises that attitude. Smart.

Hmm… fair warning. I’m just about to go on a bit of a ramble so if you just want to know quickly if I thought it was good or not then skip to the end, marked **The Conclusion** . If you want to know why I thought it was good then keep reading…

Fact is, The Social Network is a great film. Now, it’s no masterpiece or anything… I don’t think it stacks up against some of Fincher’s other work, like Se7en or, more recently Zodiac – or perhaps I just really like serial killer films – but it is a great film… it’s just not really Fincher’s film. That’s not a problem, but it is a fact. What makes this film, pushes it above the parapet of mere story-telling, is the unique script-writing talents of Aaron Sorkin

Ironically enough, the fact that Aaron Sorkin was writing it was the one thing that I kept forgetting in the run up to this release. Ironic because it’s the one thing that should’ve really convinced me earlier that it wasn’t going to be a disaster. I loved The West Wing. The thing about Aaron Sorkin’s writing is that it makes you believe that the world is a lot smarter, a lot more witty and a lot more… concise? clear? noble?… that it makes a lot more sense than it really does.

Sorkin has taken the players in what is, ostensibly, the story of how Facebook was founded and the subsequent fallout, and created a group of utterly compelling characters. Intelligent, self assured, scintillating people who I just don’t believe could ever exist in real life. Nobody talks the way Sorkin writes, nobody. If you’re planning on seeing The Social Network and you’ve never seen The West Wing be prepared to be taken on a fantasy trip around magical land where no-one is ever lost for words and everyone has a funny quip when needed. If you do know and love The West Wing then you’ll see it from the second a character opens their mouth in this film. Sorkin’s dialogue is unmistakable.

I’m sounding like a fan girl. I know it. What can I say? If you see The Social Network you’ll know why. I wouldn’t have found this film half as enjoyable if it weren’t for Sorkin’s fingerprints. Course there are people who don’t like his writing. That’s cool, in which case I don’t think I can over-emphasise the script. If you hate his writing you’ll probably hate this film.

But, perhaps I am going on to much about the writing, it’s not like this is a film filled with two dimensional people just spouting words to push the story forwards. That’s where Fincher comes in, there’s an atmosphere that he brings to his films – the Harvard campus that Zuckerberg inhabits at the start of this film is a dark, cold place filled with faceless people who are all, undoubtedly, happier than him… the tilt-shift boat race with its Reznor/Ross twist smacks of the over-indulgence of its setting… the meeting with Parker is dizzying in it’s speed and pizazz. Where Sorkin leads the ears, Fincher brings the viewer.

Quick mention, the acting/casting is quality. I don’t think they’re going to win any awards but they’re all more than capable of keeping up with the demands of the script as well as conveying the attitudes and emotions of the characters. Jesse Eisenberg is excellent as Zuckerberg…

And speaking of Zuckerberg. What would he think of this? Zuckerberg is on record saying “I wish that no-one made a movie about me when I was alive” so we can assume that… he’s worried. The film is actually based on a book called The Accidental Billionaires: The Founding of Facebook A Tale of Sex, Money, Genius and Betrayal by Ben Mezrich. No-one from Facebook was involved in the making of the film, though Eduardo Saverin, one of the Facebook co-founders, was a consultant on the book. So… regarding the veracity of the film, who knows? It could all be a load of bull crap. I don’t know about what actually went on but I don’t believe for one second that any of the people in the film are accurately portrayed… but why let those kinds of concerns get in the way of a good story. It’s just a movie, go along for the ride…

For what it’s worth, I don’t think Zuckerberg should be worried… Yeah, he could come off better in it but I actually thought it was very sympathetic towards him. Yes, he seems a bit arrogant, but he’s also portrayed as someone who’s insecure and is desperate to do the right thing. It’s just that doing the right thing isn’t always as easy as it sounds. And besides, who are we to criticise the follies of youth? He was only 19 when he set up Facebook, he’s only 26 now – makes ya sick doesn’t it? He’s still got plenty of time to make up for anything he’s done in the past. Hell he doesn’t have to. He invented Facebook damn it. He literally changed the world.

I hope he sees the film. It’ll probably drive him mad because well, it’s probably all fiction, but apparently he is a fan of The West Wing… maybe they can do a special version for him where they dub all the names and references… maybe then he could enjoy it too?

**The Conculsion**

If you’ve read the rest of this then you know I’ve been rambling on, sorry about that… otherwise you’ve cut to the conclusion, so here’s what I thought of the film overall. I found it fascinating. It was like… the experience of Facebook in a film. It’s voyeuristic, enviable, entertaining but ultimately… an incredibly enjoyable waste of time. There really is little to it, except that it’s unbelievably slick. It’s so well made, well put together, you have to give Fincher and Sorkin kudos. I never thought that the founding of Facebook could make a good movie, but they found a way.

As did the actors, composers, cinematographer and everyone else on the film… it’s a very specific triumph of style of substance. I don’t know if the true story of the founding of Facebook would really be inherently boring, but I can tell ya, there’s no way it could possibly be this interesting. In addition it really got me thinking about the whole “social networking” thing – I like thinking – about how people connect, why people connect and how Facebook changed the way that I, personally, connect with people… That doesn’t really have anything to do with the plot, but it has everything to do with the idea of Facebook, and that is what the film is about after all.

I walked out of this film eminently satisfied. Like I said, it was a great film. I didn’t think it was brilliant – briefly, I thought it slightly lost its pacing at the end, but that was ok because then it was over. I also thought it required a little suspension of disbelief which might be a slight stretch for some viewers. You just have to accept that the people talk like that. There’s no way around it.

And finally, I wonder about the conclusions we’re meant to draw from it. It’s not that they’re set in stone but the obvious one (taken to a basic level) does give me cause for concern. If you’ve seen it then highlight the blank: [ So... it was all about sex really? ]. I just don’t know, it makes me uncomfortable. Then again, [ maybe that's what it's always about... ]. Do let me know if you have any comments on that…

8.5/10

Bit of a postscript:

There’s one other reason I think people should see this film.

Because this is the time.

It captures the Zeitgeist * and presents it in a way that’s admirable, relevant and relatable… but it’s a time that will soon fade from memory, as all times do. Life is moving so quickly and I can guarantee that soon we’ll all move on, and we’ll look back at this film and the stench of hubris will be overwhelming, sickening, and we won’t even remember how it possibly wasn’t. How these were kids with ideas and dreams, who built a framework, populated it with human desire and changed the world. It’ll all get swept up in privacy arguments, marketing criticisms, money, petty jealousy and whatever becomes the “next best thing”.

In 1, 5, 10 years time this film will just be a curiosity of clever script writing, a good score and very competent direction and no-one who watches it will be thinking about Zuckerberg changed the way that they, personally, relate to the people around them. It’ll just be the norm… or of course, there’ll be some other norm. Who knows what the future holds.

The Social Network is coming to Irish cinemas on 15th October 2010.

* I know, I used the word Zeitgeist, it kinda goes against the ethos of the site but I really didn’t know another word for it…

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

Personally, I had been rather apprehensive about this whole Avatar business. I can’t remember the last time a film promised so much (well… maybe Snakes on a Plane but that was really a different kind of promise). It’s been 12 years since James Cameron made a feature film… 12 years is a long time. Of course that film was the highest grossing movie of all time ($1.8 billion worldwide, just so you don’t have to look it up)… but then again, not everyone looks back kindly on Titanic. I actually liked and still like Titanic, but the idea of Titanic in space with a load of blue monkeys? Uh… I just wasn’t so sure about that. And of course Cameron also directed Terminator, Aliens and True Lies. All great films but I just don’t know how this all fits together.. what kind of films does James Cameron do? What kind of film was Avatar going to be? And there’s so much riding on Avatar – Cameron’s reputation of course, but the way it’s being sold, the future of 3D cinema as well. This film is supposed to push 3D out of kids films and horror and into the mainstream. It was too much, too puzzling, I just couldn’t get behind this film wholehartedly.

I’m almost hesitant to tell you what I thought of it. I think you’d be better off if you go see it yourself first. Stop reading now if you haven’t seen it… or read on if you’ve seen it, or if you prefer to hearing other people’s opinions before you see a film… it’s up to you, just don’t say I didn’t warn you, but I do think it’s one that you might want to keep your ears and eyes closed about it beforehand.

If you are still reading on then I think Avatar is going to be a bit of a divisive one, particularly because I think there’s a chance it’ll draw in more than a few people who don’t watch movies a lot… I hope it does anyway. Which is not to say that I think people who don’t watch movies a lot will particularly love it or hate it. Some will and some won’t. I just mean that there’ll be more people talking about it than your average genre film. For example, I doubt My Bloody Valentine was particularly divisive. Not many people who don’t like horror would go to see such an obvious horror/slasher film so it’s not like there’d be many arguments about it. Avatar on the other hand is being sold very wide, wider than I think the genre/s fit. I’m not sure exactly what genre it is but it’s definitely being sold outside it.

Mind you, the genre is irrelevent in a way… I think everyone should see this film. Not everyone will like it but I definitely think everyone should see it. There will be people out there who just aren’t going to buy into the big blue aliens. There’ll be other people who just don’t like sci-fi. There’ll be sci-fi fans who aren’t happy because it’s not sci-fi enough… that doesn’t matter. The fact is, it looks amazing… let me say it again, AMAZING. I could go on with a few more superlative adjectives but it’s not worth it, you’ll just think I sound nuts. Amazing I tells ya. You just have to go see it. It is worth it…. Even if your brain hates it your eyes will enjoy the feast. I liked the 3D in it too. It was used very effectively, there were a few “coming out of the screen at you” moments but a lot of it was giving depth to scenes, just making things look more realistic. It was different from the other 3D I’ve seen. Then again, it’s a very different film from the other 3D films out there.

Will it revolutionise cinema though? I don’t know. First of all, I don’t how much this kind of thing costs and let’s face it, big budget film making is all about the money. But also I don’t know how well it would work with other films. I can see it with the big summer blockbusters, certainly Transformers and Star Trek would benefit from it but I still don’t think that it’s worth it in every case. I guess it really depends on the maths…

In general though, it’s not a great film, it’s a good film but not a great one. Or at least I wouldn’t put it up there with the rest of Cameron’s work. I think in another review, I mentioned that I don’t particularly watch individual films in the context of a director’s overall work. And that’s true. But in this case it’s easier to reference his because… well… I’m just finding it difficult to find a genre to review it in. It’s not really a sci-fi film. Sure, it’s in space and there’s aliens all over the place, but it’s really just a normal drama set against the backdrop of an alien planet. But, you couldn’t compared it to something like… I dunno, Almost Famous or something. I was very much reminded of The Lord of the Rings trilogy watching it. It truly is an epic film. Cameron has created a whole world for us, so I can’t say it wasn’t great because it was a bit of a corny love story. It’s like saying The Lord of the Rings films are just three films about a very long walk. That’s just bollocks.

Ok anyway, this film has really got me waffling. Let’s get down to it. Avatar is a good film but it’s a bit mainstream for my taste. It’s not really entirely a straight up love story like Titanic but it’s more than half way there. The pacing is reasonable but it’s slightly long (about 2 hours 40 mins) and I found the music more than a little annoying (it’s comments like that that are the reason you should watch a film before reading the reviews – now when you watch it you might be listening out for the music and this isn’t a film where you should be worrying about the music… but anyway…). That said, it’s not like the music spoiled it for me, it was just annoying. Characterwise, it’s ok. I wouldn’t say they are well developed but it’s not that kind of film so it doesn’t matter. Acting is fine, a bit shaky in places and the best actors probably aren’t on screen for long enough – I’m pointing at Sigourney Weaver and Giovanni Ribisi here – but there’s nothing painful or shocking about it. The plot is predictable… but again, that’s just the type of film it is. Some films are predictable, it’s not a bad thing, it’s just a thing. It’s not awful though, it’s engaging enough and generally sustains itself across the 160 minutes or so.

All these complaints aside though it’s still a good film. In fact it’s almost a great film. I found myself immersed in this alien world and if a film can do that then it can’t be bad. It is thanks in no small part to the visual effects but also it’s pretty much a full realised world. The Na’vi are a distinct culture and they are a believable culture in my eyes given the world they inhabit.

Anyway I do urge you to go and see it if you haven’t already. It does look AMAZING and yes, it is worth it just for that. And do spend the money on seeing it in 3D. This kind of work deserves to be seen the way it was designed to be seen. Just don’t expect too much from the story. In that respect it’s competent but it’s not worthy of those superlative adjectives I didn’t use to describe the visual effects.

8.5/10

Share

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8.5/10

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

I know this is a bit pretentious and all and maybe slightly disqualifies me from the monikor “average” but what can I say? I like making up my own mind about films and if I didn’t see this one then I’d never know what the other reviewers were talking about. Well, ok, I don’t actually have a list of “must see” arthouse films, just “must see” films, but I wanted to make it clear from the outset that Antichrist is an Arthouse film with a capital A.

As I’m sure I’ve mentioned before, I only read other reviews after I’ve seen the film and in other reviews I keep seeing mention of Saw and Hostel. I can only assume that some of these people haven’t seen any of these films. First of all, they are completely different from each other and second, they are worlds away from Antichrist. Seriously I don’t know where they get this stuff. And as a word of warning to horror fans, if you want to see a film like Saw or Hostel don’t watch Antichrist. This is not a horror film, but it is a film about horror.

There’s no point in me talking about what other people thought of it though. I hope by now you’re reading because you want to know my opinion… and in my opinion, this is a really good film. Now ok, we’re talking about a certain type. This is not a film to watch for a relaxing Friday night, like I said, this is Arthouse and if you’re going to watch it then you have to be in the mood for it. But if you are in the mood for a good think, it’s well worth a watch.

On a basic level it’s an interesting exploration of the structure of a relationship, how this particular couple interacts following a tragic event. I suppose you can gather from this that it is not a plot driven film. It’s driven by studying character and emotion, or lack there of. It’s also a stunning piece of cinematography, it is a beautiful looking film. I did think at times it was slightly unsubtle in its use of that whole “enviroment reflecting the state of mind” device… but then again, I do think it can work so don’t take that as a strong criticism. In terms of acting, Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg both perform ably in what I do think were very difficult roles. I’m certain that this all could have gone horribly wrong with less gifted actors. I don’t know if the performances were sustained throughout the film, but still, given the focus on them (they are the only two characters in the film), it was excellent work.

I have to reference a couple of films here – Irréversible and In The Bedroom. I know I’m straying away from the “average film review” ethos here but hey, sometimes a film demands it. Also I wouldn’t recommend Antichrist to anyone looking for an average film so I’m saying it’s ok to talk about films that the average person may not be familiar with. You can leave me a comment if you disapprove

But anyway Irréversible and In The Bedroom. I thought of both of them while watching Antichrist. Now I hated Irréversible, I thought it was pretentious, overwrought, self absorbed crap. I really thought it showcased a lot of what makes arthouse films so inaccessible to the general public and for that reason it really galled me. I liked the idea but the execution was sh!t. The reason I was thinking about it though, was that it caused the same kind of controversy on its release and it wasn’t worthy of it either. In The Bedroom, on the other hand, is excellent film. It has the same kind of undercurrent as Antichrist, they both make you feel slightly voyeuristic, like you’re watching a situation that you have no right to see. If you haven’t seen In The Bedroom and you like Antichrist you should definitely watch it. Though I should be clear, they’re not similar at all. If anything they are contrasting ways of making a film about a similar subject.

There’s been a lot of talk about misogyny and many reviews I’ve read seem intent on judging Antichrist on Lars von Trier’s body of work rather than just looking at this one film. I suppose that’s personal preference. I would never judge a directors work based on another film just because it’s their film. If there’s some link in the stories or if it’s a sequel then that’s different but personally I think every film stands on its own. Ok, there is such thing as context but I believe that when a director puts a film out there it is there to be personally interpreted by the viewer. Who directed it isn’t important, it’s the film itself that we watch and hopefully enjoy, why should who directed it and what films he or she has directed before play any part in our viewing? For the record, I didn’t think it was particularly misogynistic. I do think it’s open to be interpreted in different ways and if that’s the way one chooses to interpret it well… as always, how you view a film is up to you.

I’ve digressed again so I’ll finish off… Antichrist is a film that you can read a lot in to, or nothing in to and everything in between. It’s interesting like that.

8.5/10

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is set about two years after the first Michael Bay Transformers film and, as you can gather from the trailers, our friend Sam Witwicky is off to college. I’m not going tell you any more about the plot, personally I wouldn’t even watch the new trailer because I thought it looked like they might reveal too much. This made it difficult to go to other movies, luckily that trailer has hardly any talking so staring at the floor worked quite well. But I digress. I seem to do that a lot.

Ok, when I walked out of the theatre after seeing this I was hyped up, I thought it was great. And it is great. If you love giant robot fighting – and I love giant robot fighting – then this is the film for you. But today I’m wondering, how great was it… really.

Well the effect are fantastic. Really amazing. I mean I’ve never seen anything like it. I thought the robot fighting moved slightly too quickly in the first film and I wasn’t the only one. That has been slowed down a little bit in this one. The action still moves at a frenetic pace but you can actually see if it’s an arm or a leg or whatever that the robots are bashing. So that’s great.

Plotwise, I’ve seen a lot of moaning on the internet over the last day or two. I don’t really know what they’re complaining about. I didn’t think it was particularly complicated, but in any case it doesn’t really matter anyway. In fact I still don’t know how they managed to have so much of a plot at all. There didn’t seem to be time between the giant robots fighting. So that’s grand really.

Where the film falls over slightly is on the characterisation. In the first film we had quite a few characters roaming around and they were all given a direction and a reason to be there. In this one it’s as though Michael Bay decided that we already know the various characters that are back so he didn’t need to deal with them. And it introduces very few new characters so there isn’t really any attempt to build scenes around any connection between any of the characters at all. So that was a bit annoying. It didn’t annoy me at the time, but it annoys me now.

It’s not a perfect film and it was never going to have the same effect on me as the first one. There were no expectations going into that one, we didn’t have any idea of how the movie should be. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was always going to suffer from how people thought it should go, based on Transformers, and it’s not exactly fair to judge it through the same eyes.

I had a great time watching it; the action scenes are absolutely fantastic. Could it have been better? Yes. On the other hand it could have been a lot worse and, while I have focused on merits of the action, there were some genuinely good “normal” scenes as well. In fact it’s a lot funnier than the first one and I welcomed that.

I have to throw it in really as I’m sure there are people who want to know… How does it compare to J.J. Abrams Star Trek. Well… I did love Star Trek and if I recall correctly I said almost exactly the same thing about the criticisms of its plot. It’s kind of hard for me to compare them. Star Trek was probably the better film, in the sense that there was better balance to it, it had all the elements you want, in satisfying quantity and quality… but I can’t say I’m overly interested in seeing it in the cinema again. I might watch it on DVD with a friend (I have quite a large HD TV with blu-ray player so it’s not that I’m really damning it to TV) but I don’t feel a need to pay €10 to see it. I absolutely want to see Transformers: ROTF in the cinema again. On the other hand I’ve given it a lower rating. At the end of the day, as excellent as it was, Star Trek just wasn’t as fun a film. That’s how they compare for me anyway.

Course if I was comparing Chris Pine to Shia LeBeouf we would have an outright winner…

um….

…took a while to find that photo…

…what was I talking about again?

Anyway, as always, let me know your own comments!

edit: I’ve decided that I probably am a bit generous giving it an 8.5/10. I’ve revised that score…

8/10