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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7/10

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.5/10

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

I wish he hadn’t.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.5/10

In more ways than one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.5/10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9/10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7/10

Ok. Possibly, I may have given Revenge of the Fallen too high a score… but oh well, I can’t back away from it now. I have revised my rating expectations in the last while but I’d still give it like a 7.

Anyway, there’s a lot of people who’ll see “Michael Bay” on the poster and that’ll make up their minds about the film for them. The fact is, I couldn’t give a damn about Michael Bay. I’ve only seen 4 of his movies and 3 of those were the Transformers films. The other was Armageddon, which I love, quite simply because it’s the most cheesy film I’ve ever seen in my whole life. It’s amazing the level it takes it to. As far as I’m concerned, that’s something to be admired.

Oh wait, this isn’t meant to be a rambling conversation with myself about nothing in particular. This is meant to be a review. So I’d better do that. Ok. Right…

The fact is that, even though I love giant robots. And even though I enjoyed this movie. I found it much harder to forgive the blatant transgressions in this film than the other two. The flaws in this run deeper than in the other two… in my opinion.

I kinda don’t want to start off on a rant so I’m gonna go with some nice things first.

The things I liked about Dark of the Moon were the things I liked about the other two films. I think the effects and the action in these films fan-tastic. I’m not VFX artist. I don’t know jack about these things. All I know is that these films make me believe that they really had giant robots* skating down highways and destroying buildings. I can enjoy a film on that level alone. I don’t really need more than that.

I also think it has decent pacing. Decent, not great. It’d be better paced if they cut out half an hour, but I didn’t think it was boring at any point. They whizzed along from one thing to the next pretty quickly. I was relatively interested in what was going on but mainly I wanted to see giant robots fighting and they did plenty of that.

One could argue that the plot was overly convoluted. I wouldn’t. There were a lot of people and giant robots taking about “Cybertron” and “Pillars” and a “Space Bridge“… but you don’t have to listen. Basically the bad guys want to do some bad stuff and the good guys want to stop them. Beyond that, the plot is irrelevant. I mean it’s there and I’m sure someone spent a good lot of time thinking it through. The details are kinda complicated, in some way, I suppose, but… who cares?

And, I still liked the old characters. I think Shia LaBeouf is perfectly believable as Sam Witwicky, the brave, yet weedy, hero. I find his parents and John Tuturro’s Simmons good comic relief. Josh Duhamel and Tyrese Gibson are still convincing soldier types. Some of the new folks were good as well – Ken Jeong, John Malkovich and Alan Tudyk all turn up and steal scenes all over the place. But… there is another new character… and this is where we come to the bad part of the film.

And now I’m not feeling like a rant, but anyway…

I place all the problems with this film squarely on the shoulders of the people who decided to get rid of Megan Fox and hire a model as the female lead. I’m sure she’s probably a nice person, and I’m not saying that Fox is the greatest actress around. But I always got the impression that Ms. Fox had a brain in her head. Rosie Huntington-Whiteley does not that give off that impression. Which is not to say that I assume she doesn’t. She could be a Rhodes scholar for all I know ^.

All I can say about her is that I hope she is well paid… She seems to have the acting ability of a broomstick and I doubt she will have a long career in the field. I mean she has one scene in the film where she has to do anything of note and it was awful – even I couldn’t pretend I didn’t hear that mindless babble…

… but also, I hope she was well paid because it looked to me like she was horribly exploited in the film. Megan Fox, I believe, knew what she was doing when she leaned over that car engine. I’m not sure that Huntington-Whiteley realised when they filmed that upskirt shot. Or at least, I’m not sure that she realised it would be used. Now I know they hired her because she’s an underwear model but part of me imagines that, per hour, she makes more money at that than being made to look a fool in a Hollywood blockbuster.

It really is my biggest problem with the film. I just don’t see why they decided to go down that route. It’s demeaning and it brings down the tone of the film. Plus, I’m sure there’s plenty of good-lookin’ actresses out there who could look just as hot as Huntington-Whiteley but also actually have the ability to act… Thus, the role wouldn’t have had to be relegated to… well, underwear model. Obviously whoever got rid of Megan Fox didn’t feel that necessary though.

While that mis-step was, to me, almost impossible to ignore, I don’t feel too bad for young Rosie. Not so much that I’m going to say it’s a bad film because of it. There were lots of things about it that I enjoyed and this particular transgression from decency, while shocking, was just about of the right side of forgiveable. And I’m sure there’s actresses who’ve had to do a lot more to get a whole lot less. It may not be a long career but I imagine Rosie will come out of it alright.

So I guess that’s all there is to say. If you like (allegedly) hot women, fast cars, loud explosions and giant robots. This is the film for you. I thought it was good fun. Get some popcorn and check your brain at the door.

Oh! I forgot to mention the 3D. I’d heard along the way that they had especially brightened the 3D versions of Transformers: Dark of the Moon. It shows. I have long complained about how dark 3D films are. T:DotM does not suffer from this at all. Which is nice.

7/10

* let’s see how many times I can put in “giant robots”.
^ she’s not.