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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.5/10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5/10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8/10

Well, Thursday was a happy day for me because it saw the debut of the trailer for Moonrise Kingdom, Wes Anderson’s latest offering. It’s written by Anderson and Roman Coppola, who last collaborated on The Darjeeling Limited so I’m taking this as a good sign.

There’s not loads of information out there at the moment so here’s the official synopsis:

Set on an island off the coast of New England in the summer of 1965, Moonrise Kingdom tells the story of two twelve-year-olds who fall in love, make a secret pact, and run away together into the wilderness. As various authorities try to hunt them down, a violent storm is brewing off-shore — and the peaceful island community is turned upside down in more ways than anyone can handle.

Anderson has assembled some big names for this one; the cast is led by the two young newcomers, Jared Gilman and Kara Hayward, but Bruce Willis, Frances McDormand, Tilda Swinton, Ed Norton and Harvey Keitel all feature in various fun looking roles.

Fans fear not though, he also has a couple of his usual suspects in Bill Murray and Jason Schwartzman as well as his regular cinematographer Robert Yeoman.

Watching the trailer it looks like absolute classic Anderson so I, for one, can’t wait to see it. To forewarn you though, I did tune out a little toward the middle because it was starting to look a little spoilery.

Undoubtedly there will those out there who would rather hear nails on a blackboard than watch a new Wes Anderson film. To ye I say… fair enough. Just don’t go see it.

Sadly there is no Irish / UK release date yet announced but you can rest assured I will let you know as soon as I hear.

RELEASE DETAILS

release date: 23 May 12 (US), UK & IRL TBC
director: Wes Anderson
writers: Wes Anderson, Roman Coppola (writers)
cast: Jared Gilman, Kara Hayward, Bill Murray, Jason Schwartzman, Bruce Willis, Frances McDormand, Tilda Swinton, Ed Norton, Harvey Keitel
genre: drama, comedy
running time: TBC

Official website: TBC
Official facebook page: TBC

In more ways than one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.5/10

On the whole, I don’t think 2011 was a great year for cinema. There were some great films sure but I struggled to get 10 films to be honest. I should probably preface this by saying that I managed to miss 3 of the films that seem to be featuring on critics lists all over the place. Somehow The Tree of Life, Melancholia and Incendies all passed me by. Rest assured they are on my list for DVD perusal.

As I did with last year’s top 10 of 2010 feature, I’ll be sticking to titles that released in the Republic of Ireland and UK in 2011, regardless of when I saw them. This means that unfortunately films such as The Artist or The Descendants, which are getting on to a lot of US lists, aren’t eligible for this one. Also I’ll be linking the titles to any reviews I did, and where I didn’t do a review you’ll get the IMDb link.

Here we go. In reverse order.

10. Your Highness

It’s only the first one of the list and already I can hear you all saying “Really?, Really!?”. Yes, really. What can I say? Maybe this film just caught me a in a good mood, but I laughed at it a lot. I think it was just that it was so unexpected. They really committed to the brand of comedy they were going for. Did I think I would ever see a Minotaur d!ck hanging around a hero’s neck? No. Was it in poor taste? Yup. But did I laugh when I did? Hell yeah.

If I’m being perfectly honest, I wasn’t sure whether it really warrented getting on the top 10 of the year list, but by virtue of the fact that there aren’t any other comedies on here, I thought I should put it on. If there had been a stand out film that I thought really deserved a spot it wouldn’t be, but like I said, it’s not been a fantastic year… (7.5/10)

9. Battle: Los Angeles

If you read the review you’ll get the full rant (and it was a rant), but the gist of it is that I think Battle: Los Angeles got a bit of bum deal. It had an absolutely fantastic teaser trailer and I think that caused a lot of people to expect a movie they didn’t get. Which is a shame because I really thought it was a great movie.

It was a bit clichéd and a bit cheesy but I genuinely think that it was a good-looking simple action film that knew what it was doing and did it well. So many films do the big budget action thing and don’t bother about plot, characters or anything else that could take away from the huge explosions. Or worse still they try to over-complicate their films with too much plot and far too many characters. This managed to stay away from both those pitfalls. It was a strong, tightly focused film that did what it set out to do. Show us a group of soldiers killing loads of aliens. (8/10)

8. The Fighter

I was in two minds about this one. I couldn’t decide if I liked Warrior or The Fighter better… and whichever one I liked better was the one that deserved to be on the list. I didn’t want to have two such similar films on it.

It didn’t help The Fighter that it’s one of those 2010 films that didn’t release here till 2011, and thus isn’t getting the year end round up love that Warrior is.

Obviously enough, I went with The Fighter.

I’ve been quite harsh about sports movies this year but the fact is, they are all very similar…

Our protaganist is talented but he doesn’t know how/won’t use it.
Someone takes an interest.
It gives him the reason to work hard. (cue montage).
He suffers a setback.
People spur him on.
He fights harder and gets further than you’d ever expect. (cue another possible montage)
One final big fight.
Everybody in the cinema feels the amazing rush of the climax of the film.
End of movie.

What set The Fighter apart were the, quite frankly, amazing performances from all the cast. Mark Wahlberg and Amy Adams really gave it their all as the leads, but it was Christian Bale and Melissa Leo who really stole the show. Rarely would I ever brook no argument over an Oscar win – they’re always contentious and everyone is entitled to their opinion – but these two… I will brook no argument! (8/10)

7. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2

I waited some 12 years to find out what happened to Harry Potter in the end, and finally I found out. It did not disappoint.

To explain, I was a big fan of the Harry Potter story, but somewhere around the middle of the sixth book I decided that I just couldn’t do it any more. The last two books were so long, and (in my opinion) quite badly edited and I just couldn’t face read any more of it. Particularly not with the movies actually (mostly) living up to the books. I decided to wait for the last few films. That was in 2005.

How I managed to avoid spoilers all this time I will never know but I managed it. And so, when Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: part 2 came around, I was clean and fresh for the epic battle that awaited. And it was epic. Which was lucky because truth be told and I’d been quite disappointed by HP7: part 1. I’d have hated to have waited this long just to be crushed by bordom.

I wouldn’t say it was a perfect ending to the series and of course, unlike The Fighter, it’s not as though there were amazing admirable performances to watch. But I did find it supremely satisfying and thus, it’s made it here to the top 10. (8.5/10)

6. Perfect Sense

I suspect Perfect Sense, starring Ewan McGregor and Eva Green, passed a lot of people by. Truth is, it almost passed me by. It got a tiny release in Ireland and it probably wasn’t the most… well let’s just say it might have lacked broad appeal.

It was a film that was right up my alley though. I’ve mentioned, on more than one occasion, my love of sci-fi. While this isn’t a sci-fi film, much like Another Earth (which hit Irish and UK theatres recently), it does have a touch of sci-fi to its setting and that’s enough for me.

This film put me in mind of one of my favourite films of all time, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. People who’ve seen both will probably think I’m crazy but I really do think that there’s a parallel to be drawn between the conclusions in both films. Of course I guess that depends on the conclusion you draw from the end of Enternal Sunshine.

In any case, I thought Perfect Sense was a little gem and one that deserves more attention than it got. Quick, go seek it out. (8.5/10)

5. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is a film that I think divided people. I can see why many would find it boring and tiresome but personally, I found it fascinating. I said more in the full review but basically I saw Tinker, Tailor as a puzzle. A twisty little maze of a puzzle.

Thing is, if you don’t have patience for puzzles, or lots and lots of very dry dialogue – basically if you think 2 hours of watching a bunch of old English men talking to each other in code is some kind of hell on earth – then Tinker, Tailor is not for you. I can totally understand that. But if you’re willing to stick with it then it is a very rewarding film. (8.5/10)

4. Hugo

I wasn’t sure about Hugo (formerly known as Hugo Cabret) when I first heard about it. Martin Scorsese is directing a kids film? Really? Plus I thought it was animated… so… Martin Scorsese is directing a kids animation? Really? In 3D? Wha?

It turns out it wasn’t an animation. I was mistaken on that. And it’s only kind of a kids film. It is in 3D though and I have to say… it is, hands down, the best 3D I’ve seen since Avatar. So that was nice.

Beyond that it is an altogether charming film. All at once it is the tale of a young orphan boy, a mystery-adventure centring on an automaton and a trip through the history of cinema. It’s not really a kids film though. Well, it kind of is. As long as that kid is over 10 years of age and bookish. (9/10)

3. Tyrannosaur

A taut and gripping domestic drama, Tyrannosaur was another one of those films that few people seem to have caught in the cinema…

In his directorial debut, Paddy Considine (who also wrote the film) managed to draw what I consider the two best performances of the year. Peter Mullan excels as Joseph, an alcoholic widower who is seemingly on the path to self-destruction, while Olivia Colman (who I’d only ever seen before in C4 comedy Peep Show) is stunning as the abused wife Joseph somehow finds himself drawn to.

It’s a rough ride and I’ve never been a fan of gritty British drama but it really is an excellent addition to the genre. Highly recommended but you’d want to be in the mood for a downer. (9/10)

2. Senna

Unusually for me, number 2 on the list is a documentary. I don’t often go to documentaries but I was glad that I got to this one.

I’ve never been a huge fan of Formula One racing. Back when Ayrton Senna was in his prime I was much more into F1 Powerboat racing… But I remember when he died. I remember it was a huge shock because at that stage we’d become so used to seeing the drivers walking away from horrific looking crashes. I didn’t know exactly how famous he was but I knew his name so I knew he was a big deal.

I went to Senna knowing not much more than that.

As a non-fan, I found it fascinating. I think what stayed with me most was his passion for his chosen field. He put immense pressure on himself to succeed and it comes across completely. As a documentary, it’s an excellent technical construction, made entirely of archive footage – not the easiest way to tell a story. I would urge you to check this out. (9/10)

1. Black Swan

I finally posted the review for this a couple of days ago… and now you know why. This may have been one of the first films I saw in 2011 but it’s still the one I was thinking about at the end of it.

You can see my thoughts in the full review but suffice to say. I loved this film. It surprised me. Partly because it’s a Darren Aronofsky film and I’ve never liked a Darren Aronofsky film, and partly because you don’t see many good psychological thrillers these days. Oh yes, you see plenty of films that try to give it a go, especially horror films, but few are successful and this one was one of the best I have ever seen.

I know it wasn’t everyone’s cup of tea… but hey, if we all agreed the world would be a boring place. (9/10)

Honourable mentions (in alphabetical order)

13 Assassins – From the legendary Miike Takashi came a sword-filled bloodbath. Rivers of blood there were, rivers. Gwan Takashi.

Crazy, Stupid, Love – my pick of the romantics comedy/dramas this year. Sweet, charming and emotional in well proportioned parts. Also my favourite Ryan Gosling film of the year. Probably not his best performance though, I’ll give that to Blue Valentine. And yes, I did see Drive. Less said… because I don’t want a fight.

Guilty of Romance – I think I liked Guilty of Romance. It was pretty damn crazy. And explicit, very explicit. And horrifying, particularly horrifying. I felt quite disturbed after it… and kind of dirty. It was shocking, lurid and… let’s call it uncompromising. To be honest, I’m still not sure what I thought of it… but on the grounds that any film that does it’s job can be considered a good film – this was a great film. In any case it deserves a mention. It was certainly one of the most unique films I saw all year. Brrr…

One Day – I was very close to putting this one in, very close… but I decided I wanted to put a comedy in so it got pushed out. Now I’ve never read the book and I understand that some people say it’s not as good, but I really enjoyed it. I thought the concept translated well to screen and, dodgy accents aside, Anne Hathaway and Jim Sturgess put on strong performances. I was genuinely moved by this film. I know it was, in a way, a little light… perhaps it was just what I was looking for at the time. A good cry is always cathartic.

Warrior – I already mentioned this in the entry for The Fighter. Tom Hardy and Joel Edgerton pull off convincing transformations and it is fine, solid drama. But they’re just not as good as Bale and Wahlberg.

So there you have it. My top 10 films of 2011. Any comments? What were your faves of the year?

And… am I seriously missing out having not seen Tree of Life, Melancholia, Incendies and A Separation? Do you think they’d have made my list?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9/10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6/10