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

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

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

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

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

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

6.5/10

I wish he hadn’t.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.5/10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9/10

I can’t say I was enamoured with the idea. I hated the first Mission: Impossible film. Hated it. Somehow I ended up going to see it in the cinema 3 times that summer, so my hatred of it became properly ingrained. I never saw the other two. I didn’t think I could take it if they were anything like the first.

But that was 15 years ago.

I am older now… and I like to think I have becoming more forgiving, more accepting, with age. I no longer rage at bad movies. I try to see the good in all films… well, sometimes.

And so, I am vaguely looking forward to Mission; Impossible – Ghost Protocol. Ever since Tropic Thunder I’ve felt far more positive about Tom Cruise. Now that he’s older he doesn’t seem half as smug. Mind you, I haven’t actually seen a Tom Cruise film since Tropic Thunder…

… No matter, the big thing for me is that Jeremy Renner is in this. It’s the first of his big upcoming action roles – the others being The Avengers (Avengers clips and trailers) and The Bourne Legacy – so it’ll be all eyes to see if he can handle it. IMO he was fantastic in The Hurt Locker, a movie which (dare I say it?) I thought was vastly over-rated, so I’m all up to see what he can do.

There are quite a few clips, trailers and featurettes available for Mission Impossible 4, so have a look below and let me know what you think…

update (14 Dec 11): 4 new clips added (Girl Fight, From the Outside, Open the Door and Sandstorm) and added film running time.

update (07 Jan 12): 1 new clip added (Getting on the Train and 4 new featurettes, Meet the Team, Brad Bird Q+A, Jeremy Renner Q+A and Paula Patton Q+A

To stay up to date with the latest posts subscribe to our rss feed or join afr on facebook.

RELEASE DETAILS

release date: 26 Dec 2011
director: Brad Bird
writers: Josh Appelbaum, André Nemec (written by) Bruce Geller (tv series creator)
cast: Tom Cruise, Jeremy Renner, Simon Pegg, Paula Patton
genre: action, adventure, thriller
running time: 133 mins

Official website: www.missionimpossible.com
Official facebook page: facebook.com/MissionImpossibleUK
Official Twitter feed: @GhostProtocol and @GhostProtocolUK

Video clips available
Teaser trailer #1
Theatrical trailer #1
TV spot #1
clip: I’ll Catch You
clip: Fan Jump
clip: Girl Fight
clip: From the Outside
clip: Open the Door
clip: Sandstorm
clip: Getting on the Train
featurette: Behind the scenes at Burj Khalifa
featurette: Simon Pegg
featurette: Meet the Team
featurette: Brad Bird Q+A
featurette: Jeremy Renner Q+A
featurette: Paula Patton Q+A

teaser trailer #1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5/10

As big a horror fan I am, last year was actually the first time I went along to it. Pretty poor showing from me considering this is its 14th year. For the 2010 festival I did a little post on what I was looking forward and it seemed to go down well so I thought I’d do it again.

Whoops, first I should say, if you haven’t heard of Horrorthon before, it’s a 4.5 day festival in the Irish Film Institute. It starts on this Thursday, 27th October, with the Irish premiere of the much anticipated ghost story The Awakening and closes on Monday 31st with a special screening of a 70mm print of James Cameron’s classic, Aliens, with star Michael Biehn in attendance for a Q+A.

The full programme is up on the IFI website now and it is now open for booking. Pricewise, it’s not particularly cheap to see just the one film – tickets for most individual films are €9. That said, they do a great deal on the festival passes which cover 1, 2, 3, 4 or the full 5 days for a very reasonable price considering what you’re getting. Check out the home page for details. I think you might have to call to book them though, rather than booking through the site.

Anyway, if you’re not sure what you might like to see, here are my picks for each day of the festival.



The Awakening (2011)

When I started looking up this film I found something interesting on IMDb… “The Awakening” is an incredibly popular name for a movie. It’s ridiculous. Last year alone there were 6 films called “The Awakening” that made it on to IMDb. Jaysus people, come up with a more original name.

Ok, interesting might have been stretching it there… In any case, at the moment this particular “Awakening” has a 7.8 on IMDb. Now of course, IMDb rating are all over the place, but generally if a horror film has more than a 6, it’s probably reasonably decent. 7 is almost unheard of. That alone, in my book, is a reason to want to see this film.

Beyond that, it looks like it’s a standard issue ghost story. Which is very hard to sell really. I mean, you’ll know if you like ghost stories or not…

This particular one is set in England after the First World War. Rebecca Hall (who’s apparently the step-sister in law of someone called Issy) stars as a hoax exposer who is visiting a boarding house to disprove a haunting by a child ghost and it also features Dominic West (used to be a cattle herder) and Imelda Staunton (who will no doubt be great).

The Awakening opens the festival on Thursday 27th October at 7pm.
You can book tickets for The Awakening here.



The Exterminator (1980) / Maniac Cop (1988) – double bill

Couple of ’80s exploitation classic for ya. You like that kind of thing right?

First up is The Exterminator.

Robert Ginty stars as John Eastland, a Vietnam veteran who, after an attack on his best friend by a group of thugs, turns into a violent vigilante seeking justice (don’t they all?). Armed with a flame-thrower, hungry rats and a meat grinder, Eastland is out to clean up the streets of New York…

… Or make them extremely messy. I’m not sure which. I haven’t seen it, but I like the sound of it.

As if that wasn’t enough though, it’s followed by Maniac Cop!

You Have The Right To Remain Silent… Forever.

What a tag line! How could you not want to see a film with a line like that?

In Maniac Cop, a dangerous serial killer (is there any other kind?) is loose on the streets of (you guessed it) New York, dressed as a police officer. As the bodies stack up, Jack Forrest, a young cop (and more importantly, Bruce Campbell) somehow becomes the chief suspect. Now it’s up to him (and his girlfriend apparently) to catch the real killer and clear his name.

The Exterminator and Maniac Cop double bill starts at 11.10pm on Friday night, 28th October.
You can book tickets for this double bill here.



Troll 2 (1990)

This might just be the Best Worst Movie you ever see.

I hear there aren’t actually any trolls in this. Instantly, I love it – a “sequel” to Troll, called Troll 2, with no trolls. Genius. In fact, what it has is murderous vegetarian goblins. What?! I know!

If the idea of murderous vegetarian goblins wasn’t enough, I can also tell you that the script was written in English by the director and his wife. Who apparently didn’t actually speak English at the time. It was also filmed in Utah, with American actors, by an all Italian crew. Who didn’t speak English either. Sounds like the recipe for success to me.

I have to admit, I love the idea of watching really bad movies. Particularly films that appear on the IMDb Bottom 100. Troll 2 is on there at #74, just below Mitchell, which I can assure you is an extremely bad film. Someday, I will work my way through that list. Even if I only manage to see the bottom 10, it’s going to happen.

The fact is, if there’s ever an appropriate environment to watch films of this calibre, then late night at the IFI Horrorthon is it. I saw Birdemic: Shock and Terror in the same slot last year and it was pretty much the most hilarious movie experience I’ve ever had.

Troll 2 is on Saturday night, 29th October at 11.30pm.
You can book tickets for Troll 2 here.



The Dark Crystal (1982)

There’s only one film I care about on the Sunday. The absolute childhood classic The Dark Crystal.

I love this movie. It was one of two films* we used to watch over and over again when I was a young girl growing up in Singapore, partly because our neighbour had it on VHS, but mainly because it was brilliant. I can’t wait to see it on the big screen and I hope to see you all there at 11am on Sunday. I don’t care if you have some fancy dress party or whatever the night before. That’s no excuse. You gotta wake up and come and see The Dark Crystal.

If you’ve never seen it, The Dark Crystal is a mystical, magical fantasy adventure. With puppets. It was directed by Jim Henson and Frank Oz and at the time the animatronics were considered ground-breaking. I know I was stunned when I first saw them and I hope, if this is the first time you get to see it, you will be too. Considering it was made in the early ’80s of course.

The Dark Crystal is screening on Sunday morning, 30th October at 11am.
You can book tickets for The Dark Crystal here.



Saint (2010)

I could recommend that on Monday, you go see the 70mm print of Aliens at 8.30pm. It’s the closing film, it’ll have Michael Biehn doing a Q+A at it and it is probably, objectively, the best film at the festival.

But… it’s already sold out.

So instead, just to get you into the Christmas spirit. I’m recommending Saint.

Not that I’ve seen it or anything, so don’t blame me if it’s crap. I just like the ol’ Christmas horror flicks, you know, like Silent Night, Deadly Night… everyone knows the whole, “He sees you when you’re sleeping” thing, Christmas and horror, they just go together.

This particular Christmas horror is a Dutch film from last year and is set on Sinterklaas, or St. Nicholas’s Eve – that’s 5th December to me and you. Guess what though, this jolly ol’ St. Nick ain’t that interested in whether you’ve been naughty or nice. He’s a crazy bishop and he’s into kidnapping and murder.

Ho, ho, ho.

Saint is showing on Monday evening, 31st October at 6.45pm.
You can book tickets for Saint here.


So those are my picks for IFI Horrorthon 2011. Hope there’s one there that might tickle your fancy and maybe I’ll see you there!

The Woman in Black is an adaptation of a Susan Hill novel that’s been given the Jane Goldman treatment (Kick-Ass / Stardust). The film is being directed by James Watkins who’s only directed Eden Lake before this but he has written a few other features. I haven’t seen Eden Lake but Goldman has certainly done some good work with Kick-Ass and Stardust and, in my opinion, X-Men: First Class so I am pretty hopeful.

I’m also hopeful that Radcliffe can act. It’ll be interesting to see what he can do with another character; it certainly sounds like a bit of a departure from what he’s used to anyway. I’m somewhat suspicious that he’s playing a character that has a son, but sure, these things can happen…

Briefly, Radcliffe plays Arthur Kipps, a lawyer who has to leave his young son in London and go to a remote village to tie up the affairs of the deceased owner of a large estate, Eel Marsh House. All alone in the eerie mansion, he starts to notice something strange about the village, it’s inhabitants and the mansion itself…

… undoubtedly, scares ensue.

update 21/11/11: There is a quite a cool competition running for budding horror writers out there. Up until Dec 20th, writers are invited to submit a video of themselves reading their original short stories to The Woman in Black youtube page. 10 finalist will be chosen and voted on by the public and winner will get a trip to the UK premiere in Feb 2012 and their short story read out on the DVD by Daniel Radcliffe himself.

update 23/11/11: New teaser trailer added – Teaser trailer #3

update 26/01/12: TV ad spot added – TV ad spot #1 and the YouTube competition closing message from Daniel Radcliffe – clip: Competition closing message from Daniel Radcliffe

RELEASE DETAILS

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

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

Video clips available
Teaser trailer #1
Teaser trailer #2
Teaser trailer #3
TV ad spot #1
clip: Daniel Radcliffe reads an extract from The Woman In Black
clip: Daniel Radcliffe wants you to Submit Your Ghost Stories!
clip: Competition closing message from Daniel Radcliffe

teaser trailer #1

I have to admit, I wasn’t expecting to like Red State. I liked the trailer but I’m not particularly a fan of Kevin Smith; I can still smell Cop Out from here… then again, I did really like Zack and Miri Make a Porno and I thought Chasing Amy was kind of interesting. So maybe I shouldn’t have been so apprehensive.

I guess the big issue was that, a lot has happened since Zack and Miri and I just wondered, is he really up to making a good movie? I mean, it looked like a cool horror film and I liked horror but… I am so often disappointed by horror as well that there just seemed no point to being properly excited.

As a result… and likely as a direct result, I really quite enjoyed Red State. It’s not the finest piece of drama I’ve ever seen, nor is it the funniest comedy, but there’s was just something about it. It had an idea behind it. Now, it was a pretty simple and obvious idea – to make extremist Christians and federal goverment organisations look stupid – but it was relatively well thought out and that’s more than I can say for some horror films. Ok ok, that’s not fair, I’m simplifying, but the point is it tried from something a bit more than a slasher film.

In case you haven’t seen the trailer – and I won’t go beyond what you see in the trailer – Red State starts off with 3 high schoolers boy being lured with the promise of sex, to the compound of an extremist Christian group. Next thing you know, the ATF show up and all hell breaks loose – Waco style. You can see the various trailers in my clips and trailer: Red State post if you fancy a look.

The big thing that surprised me about the film, especially after the trailer, is that Red State isn’t a horror film at all. It’s… hmm…. I can’t really put it in a genre. That’s what’s interesting about it. Kevin Smith really does seem to try and do something new here. Unfortunately for him, he just can’t quite seem to get it right. There’s a lot wrong with this film. A lot wrong. That’s not say that you shouldn’t see it. But be warned…

First issue is… the dialogue between the teens, ably played by Kyle Gallner, Michael Angarano and Nicholas Braun, is some of the worst I’ve ever heard. Now, I never really notice swearing, honestly I don’t, and it doesn’t particularly offend me, but you couldn’t help but notice it here. These kids talked for twice as long as they should have with all the swearing. Seriously. A bit is fine. Some is fine. This was excessive. This was just stupid. Nobody talks like that.

Secondly the film is very inconsistant. It seems as though it’s trying to appeal to a teen audience at some points, a gore crowd at others, the arthouse audience along the way and just a broad cinema audience at times. It skips all over the place, never quite managing to focus or develop properly in any direction. It’s frustrating.

There are some other specific weak points that will test the audience. There’s a monologue from Parks which went on about 5 minutes too long and there’s one girl who’s just terrible. The sooner she was off the screen the better. It can’t be escaped though that the main problems are in the script and direction. Small niggling points like those can be ignored if the film hung together better.

To be honest, it’s just a shame, because I think there are flashes of greatness. Michael Parks and Melissa Leo put in some great performances and, as I mentioned, the teens (?) are relatively decent – shame about the dialogue. It’s also quite a fearless film in many ways, possibly borne of the… situations… Kevin Smith has found himself in recently. I just wish that… I think that… it just needed someone else to step in and reign him in.

Anyway, I do think Red State is worth a look. I wouldn’t call it some kind of return to form, or say that it shows Kevin Smith as the brilliant film-maker we know he can be. Hell, I never thought he was much of a film-maker anyway. But do go along and see it, or pick it up on DVD when it comes out. It’s not going to be a massive waste of your life. It can’t be really, it’s quite short.

6.5/10

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

With a class title.

Maybe that’s why I remember it so well.

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

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

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

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

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

Does that make sense? I think it does.

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

I guess that depends on how much you like puzzles.

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

I think.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8.5/10

I dunno why really, they aren’t my favourite films. It’s not the most consistent of genres and, oftentimes, it’s not the most taxing on the brain… but I guess I just feel like, you know what you’re going to get with a horror…

… If it’s a slasher flick, there’ll be loads of kilings and blood. If it’s ghost story, there’ll be lots of stuff jumping out at you. If it’s thriller, there’s a 99% chance there’s gonna be a “twist“. Vampire film? No-one’s gonna believe there’s a vampire. Zombie film? Zombies. You get the idea. I dunno. I just think they’re good solid entertainment. Even the really bad ones are so spectacularly bad that they’re entertaining *

All that said, I don’t really know which particular sub-genre of horror Kevin Smith’s latest offering falls into. But I think it looks good. I’m not mad about Kevin Smith. I, like many people with eyes, hated Cop Out. But I really enjoyed Zack and Miri Make a Porno and, casting the net further into the past, Dogma. Even though he’s said some strange stuff lately, I’m still willing to give him a chance.

Besides… Red State looks pretty good.

Have a look at a few of the trailers below…

RELEASE DETAILS

release date: 30th September 2011
director: Kevin Smith
writer: Kevin Smith
cast: Michael Parks, Melissa Leo, John Goodman, Michael Angarano
genre: horror, thriller
running time: 97 mins

Video clips available
Teaser trailer (with Kevin Smith introduction)
Theatrical trailer (green band)
Theatrical trailer (red band)

Teaser trailer