Starring Hugh Dancy as a New York resident suffering from Aspergers Syndrome, and Rose Byrne as his new neighbour, Adam explores the breakdown between being a social recluse and easing into the real world.
With Hugh Dancy playing the titular character, the audience is treated to a masterclass in acting. Every grimace, awkward moment and painful stare is captured and expressed by the newly-emerging English-born actor who delivers one of the best performances in recent years. With new neighbour Beth moving in, the inpetus is placed upon Adam to make a friend - and a lover - by breaking out of his disability and adapting to social norms from the 'real world'.
Suffering from her own personal problems, and with her father facing legal disaster, Beth is simply looking for someone who can be at her beck and call, providing warmth and a shoulder to cry on. Adam, with his condition, makes life difficult for himself but learns from his mistakes, and as a couple, try to resolve their own problems in a bid to find a happy life together.
Whilst the acting from Dancy is mesmeric - and at times deeply unsettling - the storyline falls away in the latter stages, perhaps bringing the piece to a stuttering climax. Byrne's natural beauty shines through, however, an aspect which makes up for the rest of her rather bland character.
Based on The Scarlett Letter, but adapted for the contemporary audiences, Easy A tells the story of Olive Penderghast, a virgin whose lie about losing her virginity to a friend sees her victimised in a high school where gossip travels fast and abstinence is (surprisingly) praised.
The initial lie is pounced upon by lowly high school students who pay Olive in order to say she'd partaken in sexual activity with them, thus improving their status within the school's hierarchy (how this works is beyond me).
With every further lie, Olive's supposed promiscuous nature worsens, and with further complications involved, she loses her best friend and finds herself unable to persuade those who paid her to tell the truth, landing her in even more trouble. As with the source material, however, she redeems herself, though explaining how would ruin the film for others.
The first thing to note is how natural Emma Stone is in this lead role. As Olive, she is incredibly confident, produces incredible wit which seems to suit her perfectly, and has all-round qualities which seem to make her the complete package. The manner in which she speaks to her teachers, fellow students and family members bring to the surface an air of total relaxation and charm, something which cannot be said about everybody of her age.
One of the few problems with the film is the slightly implausible nature of the latter events, though Lisa Kudrow's acting does well to ruin the film further. Mannerisms bring to life the Phoebe of Friends fame, and her character, whilst providing a catalyst, really doesn't feel right for the film. Maybe she just doesn't sit well with me as an actor.
Differences aside, Easy A is a refreshing take on the teen movie genre, with enough intertextuality and contemporary touches to give the film an edge over any rivals. Emma Stone shines through as an ultra-sexy, ultra-sharp lead who really delivers her best performance to date, and with a catchy soundtrack to boot, the film really does deserve any and all praise it receives.
Reuniting David Cross and Will Arnett of Arrested Development fan, The Increasingly Poor Decisions of Todd Margaret is yet another tale of 'lost in translation' badly executed. Cross plays Todd Margaret, a hapless salesman from a generic American insurance company, who is mistakenly shipped abroad in the hope that he can mastermind the mass sales of a dangerously toxic energy drink within the UK, with Arnett playing his narrow-minded higher-up.
Whilst the combination of the two actors produces a fantastic duo in Arrested Development, it fails horribly here. Both actors essentially reprise their roles herein, except that both roles are more extreme versions. Margaret is hopelessly weak, ignorant and naive, whilst Brent Wilts is aggressively, uncompromising and selfish.
The real issue with the programme is its archaic approach to comedy. Whilst the 'American in England' idea has been done before (in Friends for example), the over-reliance of ignorance to 'foreign' culture to make gags work is extremely basic and crude in every sense. The initial jokes involve a mix-up over the use of the words 'fanny' and 'fag', whilst Margaret later wears a BNP shirt, believing it to be a statement of English pride. In a later episode, Margaret and Wilts, desperate for media coverage, storm the London Remembrance Day Memorial. Not only is this highly offensive on moral grounds, it's also done with little class throughout, and yet somehow it cleared the writing stage, and was allowed to be aired.
Farcical elements aside, there is nothing going for Todd Margaret. The dialogue is bland, the characters lack depth and the basic premise is far too simple by today's standards. Add to that the stereotypical blunders, and a script which is not in the slightest bit amusing, and you have a huge mess. 'Increasingly poor decisions' indeed...
Following the announcement that he was to leave Hollywood, and instead launch a career in hip hop, Joaquin Phoenix - star of Gladiator and Walk The Line - decided to coax the mass media into detailing the varying stages of professional and psychological decline.
Entering a period wherein he grew out a scruffy beard and messy bundle of hair, Phoenix looked to P Diddy in a bid to launch a farcical and unrealistic career in hip hop, a far cry from the acting career for which he was so well-remembered.
What follows is a film which at times is hard to watch. Not purely because it portrays a man who seems to have thrown away a majestic career in Hollywood, or because one scene depicts him being shat on by an annoyed friend, but because at times you genuinely feel for Joaquin. A man who previously came across as being incredibly intelligent, modest and extremely likeable is suddenly reduced to a mess of a human being. Delusional in his own 'ability' to rap, seemingly withdrawn and determined to let his life flow down the drain because he feels he was typecast as being a rigid and inflexible personality within Hollywood.
The most famous section of the film is that of his interview with Talk Show legend David Letterman in 2008, whereby Phoenix seems to be absent mentally and unwilling to cooperate in responding in any personable manner. This infamous encounter brought mass attention to the previously rumoured film project, directed by Phoenix's brother-in-law, Casey Affleck. The Internet subsequently questioned Phoenix's state of mind and their mindset was understandable.
Though later revealed - in another Letterman interview no less - to be a hoax, the film does well to explore the often devastating effects of a mental breakdown, especially within a closely-observed industry like Hollywood. With the likes of Britney Spears showing the rest how it's done, I'm Still Here delivers another case study of delusion, misdirection and a general sense of overwhelming hype and expectation. Whilst there is more than a lingering doubt throughout the film as to whether it is indeed all an act, the low-key nature of Phoenix's character in real life makes it somewhat more believable as a showcase. However, the lack of closure, and of any real moral credence, leaves the film feeling a tad undone.
Having noticed this being recommended in the genre of films which attempt to assess societal mechanisms and how people live out their lives, I decided to watch this. With Philip Seymour Hoffman in the lead role, you know you'll be getting an intense performance regardless of what the role actually entails.
Sadly, his performance here was more akin to that of 25th Hour, wherein he plays a socially awkward creep. Here he plays a theatre director whose wish is to recreate the feel of the societal elements observed in New York City. He believes that the environment serves as a commentary of the world's societies put together, and that he is able to replicate the everyday lives of the everyday man in his own manufactured reconstruction of the world.
For a film which lasts just over two hours, I need to be grabbed by it within the first ten minutes. Unfortunately I was never 'grabbed' at any point, bar one particular suicide scene which was reminiscent of many 'realism' scenes featured within cinema. The character realises that he has made little impact on the world, and that every effort he has made to be with the one he loves has been fruitless. Barring this moment, the film is essentially bland, with scenes of no worth being played out and wasting too much time. Of course films can't be made up of purely masterpiece moments, but Synecdoche seemed to lack any.
If I have missed any moments of genius in this film, or have missed supposed messages, I am all ears. However, it feels like it was genuinely two hours of my life wasted.
A prequel (and effectively a sequel) to the successful low-budget film of 2009, Paranormal Activity 2 takes us into the footsteps of the Kristi Rey, husband Dan, Step-daughter Ali, newborn son Hunter and the family dog Abby.
Whilst the film takes place before the events of the first film, the scenes are largely similar though take place all around the house, and are not limited to the bedroom as in the first film. Whilst this certainly allows more creative licence in how the scares are generated, it perhaps makes it too easy to use jump scares. Whilst this is a director's ideal route, by focussing on mostly pitch-black scenes to create the scares, the first film comes across as more original and more deserving of its plaudits.
As the films progresses, the 'paranormal activity' increases both in frequency and levels of hostility, from the pool cleaner moving by itself to Kristi being launched across the house. It certainly ups the entertainment value but one can't help but feel the over the top nature of these events drags the film into becoming a farce instead of gradually taking things to the next level in more subtle fashion.
Both leads from the first also make an appearance, something of a strange occurrence for the audience who somehow clearly missed the disclaimer stating that the sequel was 'filmed' two months before Michah's death from the first film. Bizarrely, audience members were unable to digest this information.
Their involvement seems to be simply to provide a sense of familiarity to the piece, and reassurance for the Reys, who are slowly being tormented and seeking any help they can get to rid the house of its anomalies.
Taking the film to the next level, the latter stages are reminiscent of [REC] and its sequel in the manner of providing nightvision handycam footage in a claustrophobic basement, the location chosen as the hotbed of the house's paranormal activity. An action-packed finale sees a familiar face return and introduces another element of the horror genre, though personally I felt it was a rather unncessary jaunt into the realms of the absolutely farcical and another case of directors not being satisfied with a soft ending.
Whilst the sequel (or prequel) provides enough scares to keep everyone happy, and it certainly does most things right, it often feels like it's trying to hard to emulate the first film. Whilst this isn't necessarily a bad thing, the manner of the finale sadly destroys what could have been a wonderfully enigmatic finish to a well-executed follow-up.
Following on from the masterpiece that was The Godfather Part I, Francis Ford Coppola continues the trilogy with Part II, yet another gem from the 1970s, a decade which saw liberalism break through into mainstream cinema, introducing the gun culture that has epitomised Hollywood, and with it came a hauntingly magical period of cinema.
We follow Robert De Niro as young Vito in the early 1900s, as he breaks into the world of the mafia, toppling the region's warlord and making himself a Don in the process. Coppolla also brings us a taste of Michael Corleone as he attempts to reassert himself as the dominate mafia boss in 1958, a period during which hostile negotiations and widespread tensions threaten to tear apart the entire landscape.
On first appearance, De Niro finds himself in a difficult position, having to somehow dominate the role made famous by Marlon Brando. A brutish, resilient, well-respected and dominant individual, the role of Vito 'Don' Corleone is a role few men in Hollywood could have reprised with such energy, presence, charisma and sheer brilliance. De Niro, naturally exceeds all expectations and delivers one of the performances of his career (arguably bettered in Goodfellas as Jimmy Conway).
In Michael Corleone, Al Pacino finds a role which allows him the freedom of the camera, the freedom of the 'stage', and with ease he manages to create a monster in young 'Mikey'. As he negotiates behind allies' backs, and tries to find out who the traitor in his family is, the anguish, frustration and emotions are clear for the audience to see. Pacino's ability to appear as the calm before the storm, characters who could snap the very next second and yet demonstrate no visible emotion makes him one of the finest actors of his generation. His performance as Tony Montana in Scarface for years prior demonstrated his brilliance in such a role, one where power literally drove him to an early death. However, as Master Corleone, it is his sole duty to carry the integrity and history of his family on his young shoulders. It is his sheer presence in every scene, and the manner in which he asserts his prowess and psychological dominance which makes him the star of the piece, and without him at the forefront, one would have to question whether the film would really be as magnificent.
The day Warrick Brown died marked a radical shift and elemental realisation within the CSI fanbase. With Warrick’s death, Grissom’s character had been shocked to the very core, with Warrick’s true feelings for him surfacing towards the very end of his short life. As with the death in any television drama, in CSI it meant drastic changes were afoot.
When Gil Grissom left the show in Season 9, he left behind him a legacy that will not be re-envisaged. In his wake, Ray Langston, Psychology lecturer stepped in – albeit as a rookie investigator – in an attempt to give the show the burst of energy and fill the gaping hole that Grissom’s departure inflicted.
With the CSI producers fully aware of the uncertain nature of Langston’s character – both reasonably unpopular and also a rogue figure in general – they decided to squeeze as much from the newbie as possible, turning him into a would-be killer for a whodunit storyline at the end of season 10. Whilst the story arc was well executed, with no one truly knowing whether Langston was capable of such behaviour, the show is once again left with a character with whom no one really shares a rapport, a figure with a wealth of knowledge within the psychological field (exploited during his introduction to the programme and to the CSI team) but one who will never be tightly-knitted within the team as a known entity, and for that the show suffers.
The other problem with CSI as it is now, likely entering its final season, is that no one cares about the Lab Rats (as they are fondly referred to). Wendy, Hodges, Mandy and Henry all star as the lab technicians, character who give out the odd line of dialogue in the early seasons, nothing more. However, with the death of Warrick, and the depature of Grissom, more of an emphasis has been placed of stretching out the relationships between these characters in a bid to add depth and back story to the programme. Sadly, they lack character, charisma, any sense of personality and really add nothing to a show which primarily used to focus on being ‘out in the field’ or interrogating suspects. Whilst providing insight the lab rats’ lives may have seemed a good idea at the time, it does nothing but take valuable screen time away from the real cast members, and gives too much air time to the dank, bland and grey landscape that is the labs.
As this heavyweight drama series nears its final moments, it is more important to glance back over its impressive eleven seasons and admire the various stellar performances which brought the show so much success and huge audience ratings (it has been named the most watched television show in the world during its time on the air), than to ponder its demise. Whilst rumours suggest a film is in the pipeline, one can only hope that the show goes out with a bang and, if only one more time, Grissom is allowed one final appearance, to bid farewell to the programme he made, as well as the programme which made him.
Tired of the same old reality shows bloating the television listings? Sick and tired of daily shows edited to the high heavens, choosing select moments from hours of dull footage to extrapolate some kind of drama?
Jersey Shore burst onto the US television scene in 2009, and has taken the world by storm. Set on the Jersey Shore, in New Jersy, New York, the show follows the lives of eight 'guidos' as they try to have the time of their lives on the world famous 'Shore, renowned for its ultra-trendy night clubs and bars, its excessive binge culture, and its complete lack of self-dignity. Sounds like the perfect combination for a fly-on-the-wall reality TV show, right?
It is.
Starring Vinny, Angelina, JWoww, Snooki, Sammi, Pauly D, Ronnie and The Situation (yes, that's his name..albeit his nickname), Jersey Shore is an amalgamation of all that is wrong (and so so right) about trashy American reality programming. Night after night of fighting, drinking and smushing (having sex) leads to high tensions within the household and drama is found around every corner. Season 1 featured a Jersey Shore beach house, whilst Season 2 was based in South Beach, Miami. Thankfully both locations produced plenty of fireworks, though Jersey was notable for its non-stop fighting, must have been something in the water...
If you want brainless, highly amusing guilty pleasure television viewing, then look no further. Like I said...leave your brain at home.
Set in the fictional Indiana town of Pawnee, Parks and Recreation is a newly devised comedy from part of the creative team behind NBC’s The Office, Greg Daniels and Michael Schur. It follows the day to day drudgery of the parks council as they bid to improve their lowly town by making small changes to the local surroundings.
Making up the cast is a selection of Saturday Night Live alumni, including the bubbly Amy Phoehler as Leslie Knope, the ever-enthusiastic ring leader who smiles in the face of rejection and adversity; alongside the likes of Aziz Ansari, as Tom Haverford, the joker of the pack and Nick Offerman, the belligerent and serious Ron Swanson, a man who takes great care and pride in his work.
With a show that relies on its mockumentary style of presentation, comedy and its overall sense of unpredictability, it lacks any real originality within the television market. With programmes like The Office and Modern Family offering superior reactive dialogue and dysfunctional character work, it’s hard to see Parks and Recreation ever beating either of its main rivals to the punch.
One of the highlights of the show itself is the acting from Rashid Jones (I Love You, Man; The Office) who portrays the gentle Ann Perkins, a local resident whose husband falls foul within a desolate dumping hole, an area she wants to fill in, leading to her joining the committee. Jones brings to the show a sense of comfort, for she fits the ‘girl next door’ role to a tee, and always seems to represent the mindset of the viewer, playing perfectly off the wacky try-hard in Knope.
Perhaps my major issue with ‘Parks…’ is the forced reaction shots featuring Knope, a character the writers clearly want to emphasise as the hard-working and resilient force behind the committee, namely the one character who actually cares about the position she holds and the significant effect she believes she can have on the town. Whilst this in itself is understandable and Phoehler fits well into the role, it is outdone by Steve Carrel in The Office, a programme which effectively created and dominates ‘awkward’ comedy. In trying to emulate the same exact characteristics, the writers seem to shoot themselves in the foot, for it is not a strong enough character to carry the show on its own, whereas The Office has magnificent support from other areas of the show, meaning it was able to extend its reach across several seasons. ‘Parks’, it seems, does not.
From the crazed, yet genius mind that is Chris Morris, Four Lions takes on the world with unedifying bravery in depicting the often ignorant and naïve perspective of aspiring suicide bombers. Set in the North of England, a group of young and misguided Muslims set forth what they believe is a radical and non-conformist set of beliefs regarding the afterlife, and how they feel Muslims as a whole are mis-treated by the global media.
One criticism to no doubt be aimed at the piece is that it perhaps makes light of what is a grave and appalling way of life for many in the Middle East, and indeed pain and suffering witnessed and experienced by thousands of victims’ families. By contrast, Four Lions sets out a very clear message from the beginning. In laying out the stereotypical characters from your atypical comedy film; the family man, the idiot, the troubled leader, and the misguided extremist, the film addresses the prerequisites for such a film to then deliver the comedy goods. Where Four Lions excels is in its ability to push home the grave truths and morbid understanding (or lack thereof) of how Muslim extremists believe that joining a Jihad and declaring their own war on their own citizens and indeed those in other territories will in some way reward them for giving their lives for a worthy cause.
Morris has, in a sense, set out to mock the core extremist sects for their farcical notion of laying down their lives for a cause which not only destroys lives, communities and peoples’ perspective of these very religions, they also contribute absolutely nothing to the world. There are few laughs in the film itself, and they are achieved through slapstick humour, glib and moronic remarks from the film’s jester, though little does he know of his own ignorance and gross stupidity.
Four Lions is a comprehensive fable complemented perfectly by a comedic punch which softens the blow of the subject matter in such a way that the audience feels at least subconsciously comfortable with finding humour in such a horrific and in your face subject matter. However, Chris Morris deserves recognition and praise for addressing an area often reported about on the news but never directly confronted, a matter which will likely never cease but should at least be exhibited as the flawed and ultimately tragic topic of concern on the lips of this very generation.
Psychological horror is, in my humble opinion, often a scarier concept than that of the 'jump horror' genre. The sense of mental torture, one which can drive its victims to suicide or a life-long suffering, is a far more terrifying realisation than that of an axe-wielding maniac. Or at least that's how I see it.
Where The Orphanage excels in its ability to merge the concept of reality, and that of the imagination. Throughout the film, it is never clear whether Laura, the tragic mother, is in total control of her own pysche.
With an ending as touching as it is poignant, the film serves up a truly mind-bending experience. The treatment of death as a pyschological wound is wonderfully realised, and the camerawork is on the whole a fantastic aspect of what makes the film so enjoyable to watch. Not just as a practice in subtle horror but also as a means of appreciating the tragedy of personal grief.
Having almost exhausted the extensive Western corridor of the horror film catalogue, I decided to try my hand at some foreign horror pieces. First on my list was [REC], a film I knew had received universal acclaim for its effective suffocating style of filmmaking, and the cleverly placed shots (provided by the trademark shakycam) which make it infamous, in the shadows of The Blair Witch Project.
With Manuela Velasco in the lead role as the excited reporter always looking for next big breakthrough newspiece, [REC] starts slowly, setting a gentle pace by examining the often mundane life of the fireman as they anticipate the warning sirens signalling a call-out.
Naturally, this sets the contrast for the rest of the film, which soon escalates as the audience learns of a troubled woman in a nearby apartment, who is heard screaming 'bloody murder'. As the film progresses, the cause of the 'flu' virus outbreak becomes more detailed, and more people mutate. The film continues in traditional zombie-film style, with the body count increasing and the environments becoming ever-more claustrophobic, as healthy inspectors close off the apartment block from the outside.
Where [REC] breaks the fairly predictable formula in its final third, as the Angela, the reporter, learns of the real secrets behind the outbreak and finds herself in the very apartment where the problems all began. Combining natural darkness, visceral diegetic sound effects from nearby zombies, and a constant state of panic from the on-screen characters, the film immerses the audience. The sense of panic, entrapment and a real lack of visual awareness - provided through the handycam's nightvision feature - really pushes home the feeling of terror encompassed by the doomed reporter.
Not even lousy CGI can dampen the quality of the film's closing moments, as any hope of escape is snatched away - quite literally - and the audience is left with the uncomfortable and surprisingly rare (in film history) sense of the never-ending nightmare.
Running from 1999 to 2006, The West Wing was a fictional portrayal of the Democratic Presidency under Josiah (Jed) Bartlet. Featuring fast-paced back and forth dialogue, and its take on fictional and real-life political conflicts, it won three Golden Globes and 27 Emmy Awards.
Whilst many will glance at the West Wing and ponder its quality, its sense of drama and its ability to draw in its audience much in the way The Sopranos, LOST or other similar long-running TV dramas have been able to do, the West Wing possesses an altogether admirable and almost un-equivocal brilliance which somehow separates it from the rest.
The following is a list of the main characters from the show, particularly those who struck a chord and were able to influence the way the audience themselves felt about the issues raised within the show.
Josiah Bartlet – played by Martin Sheen, the President himself glimmers with authority and overwhelming intelligence. Possessing a PhD in Economics, and with a vast knowledge of the bible and the works of theorists the world over, the star of the show brings to the table qualities which television producers have tried to match or best in the last five decades and has rarely succeeded. With possible mention to Gil Grissom (of CSI fame), no other character in television drama carries with them an aura of known superiority, encyclopaedic knowledge nor of the ability to master a scene to the point of dominating every scene they are in.
Toby Ziegler – played by Richard Schiff, the Communications Director, brings with him such forceful ideologies, self-moralistic values and the overbearing belief that he is never wrong. Through Toby, Josiah finds his first true fight. With little care who he offends, Toby is one of the key players in dishing out the dialogue, one of the many reasons the West Wing is so highly acclaimed. His uncanny ability to argue his case with passion, dedication and emotion places him high up in the political ranks.
Sam Seaborn – played by Rob Lowe, the Deputy Communications Director, is another of the fast-paced dialogue magicians, waving his aural abilities about the place in the first three seasons, displaying his knowledge of global politics as well as his awareness of the issues that really matter to the American public. Whilst his position within the show is lesser than that of Toby, his influence over the President and his ability to make anyone see his way of thinking is what makes Sam such a significant character within the West Wing, sadly missed through the
later seasons though his return in the finale is greeted with universal delight.
Josh Lyman – played by Bradley Whitford, the Deputy Chief of Staff, is arguably the show’s main character besides that of the President. Most of the shows revolve around Josh’s ‘will they, won’t they’ relationship with Donna Moss – his assistant – and the subsequent back and forth. One of the more notable traits to Josh’s character is in his foolish behaviour, often making insensitive remarks or simply making wisecracks, Josh’s character comes across as simply more of an everyday man. Though his skills involve how best to react in a crisis and how to weave one’s way out of problem situations, he is still chosen as the central mouthpiece, often shown looking scruffy and unpresentable, he is essentially the character the audience can most familiarise themselves with.
Leo McGarry – played by John Spencer, is the Chief of Staff, the man everyone must go through to in order to discuss their issues, solve international and domestic problems or simply to talk to the President. With seemingly decades of experience, Leo is the ‘wise old man’, the President’s best friend and former running mate, and the person everyone leans on for personal advice or a shoulder to ‘cry’ on. The effect his death has on the rest of the team demonstrates just how important Leo is to the running of the office and the rapport he managed to build with the rest of the ensemble.
Though these are merely brief and lacking depth, I felt it impossible to truly capture or assess just how important the West Wing is to television drama and the epic nature of the silver screen. While shows like The Sopranos delivered a consistent element of gritty style and an unbelievably well-realised script, the West Wing is one of those shows which draws you in, and doesn’t let you go until you’ve either taken from it a moral or an appreciation for the lesser known issues in life.
Sure, some episodes are forgettable, and most of seasons 5 and 6 are notably lacking in quality, but there are episodes that stand out. Requiem, for example, is based around Leo’s funeral and manages to squeeze emotion from every scene. Naturally, given the circumstances, the episode was bound to be sad but the solidity of the acting on show and the dialogue used stands proud, connecting the audience to the loss of a man whose last years were spent living out the role of the father figure. That Spencer had died in real life is what brings home the harsh reality of death and how unexpectedly it takes away from us the wonderful characters we see on the television or in everyday life. The maturity of the death, and the manner in which the sombre occasion is handled, demonstrates just how brilliantly the show was able to take issues or events and make them all that more significant, as if the characters lives were decided upon these pieces.
That in itself, is why the West Wing deserves to be - and will certainly be – remembered for decades to come.
Rob Zombie's 2007 remake of the classic horror 1978 Halloween, just one of John Carpenter's hugely successful films, saw a change in attitude and direction. Taking a new perspective, Zombie took us through the eyes and mentality of young Michael Myers in a bid to understand just what that troubled child was going through to make him commit such atrocities. The film was a genuinely surprising effort, with enough changes to make it worthwhile as well as a refreshing approach which resulted in more dynamic camerawork and an extra dimension to the mute serial killer in Michael.
However, with 2009 came the Halloween II remake. The original, loved by critics and fans alike, followed Michael as he once again escaped a mental asylum, seemingly happy to slaughter anyone who tried to get in his way (and in horror movie fashion, anyone who was deemed immoral).
The problems with Zombie's sequel is not just that it's badly acted, badly scripted or that it defies logic throughout, more the addition of the white horse symbol, a seemingly random psychological symbol which is meant to demonstrate young Michael's psyche and manipulate his sense of being, thus drawing from him a combination of anger and brute force. The white horse is accopanied by a woman, and said sequences - often conveyed in a fantastical manner - seem to demonstrate links between Michael as a child and his older self, suggesting he hasn't matured and that he is still as irrational as his younger self.
The biggest problem I had with the film was that the holy grail of no-go areas was breached. The idea of hiding Michael's face is successfully avoided throughout the original Halloween franchise, yet in the final scenes of this weak remake, he is revealed as a hagged, trampy looking slob. In a sense, this is a direct analogy of how Zombie has treated this sequel. Given free-roam within a cult franchise and he destroys the once-faithful image. Quite where he went wrong between the first film and this disgrace, I have no idea.
Sure those are films which require some degree of mental input to track and understand in their fullest extent, but Christopher Nolan's latest epic takes things to the next level.
The term Inception refers to the process of manipulating someone to the extent that you are to implant into their mindset a particular feeling or behavioural intent. It is essentially a form of psychological headlock, engineering another person to believe something or to do something they wouldn't otherwise do.
Leonardo DiCaprio plays Dom Cobb, a highly trained Inceptor, whose 'final job' it is to infiltrate the mind of the heir to a dying business tycoon in order to save the global markets and - naturally - to finally find his way home to see his children.
With Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Ellen Page on board as researcher and architect respectively, Cobb must find his way into the mind of Robert Fischer, the heir in question, in order for him to split up a business partnership and end his father's stranglehold on the world market.
Whilst the premise seems hard to consume or even accept at first, it is not the heist storyline which takes centre stage. Sure, the film's focus seems to be there, but the core mechanic is the idea of lost love, the idea of keeping hold of memories which define us as humans and which mould the way we live out our lives, affected by the slightest of emotional investment.
Many have alluded to the film's structure as a mere mirror to that of the world of filmmaking. The film itself refers to the idea of architecture, of researching subjects and of the execution of fantasy. These are all elements directors, producers and actors must explore and refine in order to bring the audience out of reality and into what is effectively - if the film does its job - transform the cinema into a world where fantasies can be lived out, where everyday people can become superheroes, millionaires or simply be a part of something impossible to imagine within the confines of their normal lives.
In this sense, Nolan creates a world which caters to his audience's requirements. A world which has few rules or barriers but which also allows the freedom to explore the concept of maintaining an elements of the past whilst also shaping the future. Dicaprio, as ever, is solid in his role as the troubled but authoritative leader, whilst Gordon-Levitt once again shines as a confident and mercurial sidekick. The former proving himself as one of the finest actors of his generation, the latter looking to follow in his footsteps.
Whatever people make of Inception, with its convoluted and layer-ridden belief system and sense of meaning, there is no doubting its ability to make people think. Whether the audience is baffled by the film's meanings or because of how it renders them questioning their own existance, it is a film which will be talked about for years. An easy film to interpret it is not, but Inception lays the groundwork for the audience to truly appreciate what they have in life, and to cherish anything they may have let slip from their grip.
A film consisting of two lateral storylines. One involves a new couple attends a peaceful family gathering, whilst the other is how the same couple is chased over New York for a highly valuable phone. Stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Lynn Collins, both of whom are very good actors but the film itself doesn't seem to have a message. If anything, it demonstrates how something as bland as living a happy but uneventful life is something to savour, when compared to a potentially fatal run-in with Russian gang members.
Collins is very cute, and Levitt as charming as in (500) Days of Summer but there's little to recommend in this film. It's just above average but in the sense that bar a few basic stupid mistakes in the film's plot, it's a vanilla affair.
The man famous for his depictions of the Republican party and George W. Bush brings yet another pro-Democratic movie to the mainstream, this time trying to encourage what he sees as the laziest demographic to vote at the 2004 US Election.
Having created huge controversy the world over for his highly critical pieces Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine, Slack Uprising is Michael Moore's 2007 effort.
His belief and biggest concern about the voting system is that young adults and college students, allowed to vote from the age of 18, do not care enough to show up to voting booths and register their decision on who should run the country.
Whilst the idea of filming this process is interesting in theory, it does not transfer well to the big screen. The film's introduction tells us what we already know, that Moore's effort were not enough to ensure Bush's reign in the White House would come to an end. In that sense, the film is pointless because the audience already knows the outcome and many couldn't care less about the campaigning.
The other aspect, however, is the way in which Moore evokes a sense of purpose in the would-be voters across the USA. His aim is to tour the country, visiting low-key back alley states who would never otherwise be covered by the mainstream news, as well as the heavyweight states such as Ohio and Florida, which have decided many an election.
The opportunity to experience on screen the masses that attend these rallies and deafening applause from each set of voters is incredible and gives an idea of just how much support the Democrats were accruing as the campaign progressed, although many would doubt whether everyone involved would actually vote, as nothing is set in stone by this point.
Moore hints upon sentimental areas, such as the right to free speech and the killing of four students by Nation Guard soldiers, who were sent to disperse students protesting the invasion of Cambodia, at Kent State University, Ohio. With respect to these acknowledgements, the film certainly touches on pressing issues, such as the way the government responds to opposition and the way unjust action is taken against those who, in this case, are protesting unarmed. Thankfully, this does not happen anymore.
Politics aside, Moore's select editing of the campaign footage is at times misleading and manipulated as one would expect. Interviews with pro-Bush voters are edited to have them appear unintelligent and/or downright idiotic. Later in the film, we are introduced to the Bush voters who sneak into the rallies and have to be removed due to being a disturbance. These scenes are only mentioned later in the film as if it is an emerging problem, and not a constant hassle which I found strange, and slightly questionable
Slacker Uprising certainly serves its purpose; it demonstrates just why a Democracy should work and why the ability to vote is a human right and justifiably so. However, it is horribly disjointed in places, and doesn't always feel fluid as a production.
Yet another in a series of unknown films and never be released nationwide, Tony tells the story of an unemployed reclusive and socially awkard creep living in East London.
Tony Benson lives a very sheltered life, relying on 80s and 90s action films to build his lust for killing, whilst presenting a weedy and shy guise when out in public. During his lonely days, he lures unknowing clubbers, druggies and door to door salesmen to his flat, before unleashing various murder techniques. Storing their bodies and limbs in his flat, he later dispenses of them in nearby canals.
For the first time in a long while, I can understand how an independent film may be overlooked and kept out of the public eye. This is not a film which glorifies any aspect of life. It merely paints a grim picture of being lonely, scared of human contact and is devoid of a positive message. Nevertheless, other than an abrupt and seemingly lacking ending, the film is a subtlely poignant albeit nasty tale of loneliness in modern Britain.
Set in 1968, eight years on from its sequel 'Bioshock', this highly anticipated title was released in February without participation from original creator and inspiration Ken Levine, whose ideologies and input produced the innovative storyline handling and impressive end product.
Here, though, the gamer plays the role of Delta, a Big Daddy 'creation' who has had his Little Sister removed from by Sofia Lamb, a devious psychiatrist who has taken control of Rapture, the game's fictitious under-sea utopia, following Andrew Ryan's demise in the first game.
Whilst the creative absence of Levine had brought with it cries of woe from the most dedicated of Bioshock fans, it was seen as a chance to inject a zest of fresh writing and allowed, many believed, a chance for the series to perhaps look to other characters to produce yet another atmospheric and groundbreaking entry to the critically acclaimed IP.
Whilst the game itself doesn't bring any huge changes in any department, it certainly stands strong as both a separate entry in terms of creative production, but also as a standalone title. Those unfamiliar with the earlier game are reminded throughout Bioshock 2 of events and characters from the past through audio log entries and interaction with newer and pre-existing characters this time round. Though those with fond memories of Bioshock will not be miffed either, old characters making cameos along the way, be it through audio logs or through psuedo-cutscenes.
Gameplay mechanics are only slightly amended; the ability to wield plasmids and weapons at the same time produces some fantastic and ultimately endless ways of killing enemies, an ability which was lacking from the previous title but didn't necessary take away from the overall experience. That said, it certainly helps in close-quarters combat environments and does nothing but help those who find facing enemies overwhelming at times.
Probably the biggest letdown of the game itself is the way different characters are introduced and the way their impact on the lives of Eleanor, the game's main story character, Sofia Lamb and Delta is demonstrated. There are points in the game where peripheral characters interact with the player but little explanation (or at least, no clear explanation) is offered. This left areas of confusion in the game's timeline and left me feeling like I didn't know why I was taking on some enemies but within the overall context, this was not a concerning factor.
When considering Bioshock 2 in the same breath as its predecessor, it's hard to really compare the two. The original offered a fantastic game world, and one which players could observe and gaze at in awe, realising the history and monolithic collapse that had taken place just years earlier. The way the sense of immense atmosphere and presence was created made the game that much more impressive when placed side by side with other first person shooters across the various generations of games consoles. However, as a sequel without its creator, and with a tough task to overcome in bettering the previous title, it was never a plausible option.
However, perhaps the game's biggest achievement is how it handles the ending, a tricky area for all game developers. How does one (possibly) bring to a finish one of the better-realised stories of the current generation, whilst satisfying those who live for the Bioshock series? Without spoiling anything for those yet to play the game, for me it was a brilliantly executed ending. Not only does it wrap up the ideologies discussed in the two Bioshock titles, it all questions the ideal of Utopia, and just what makes such a magical (or otherwise) fantasy.
As a standalone title, Bioshock 2 emerges as an impressive, albeit varied shooter. It makes enough improvements to be considered a great entry within the Bioshock franchise but also makes enough changes to separate itself from the original. Does it better the original's ending, absolutely. Is it better than the original? Not quite. But few can argue that it is itself is a thoroughly enchanting and rewarding game by itself.
Having admired the iconic aura left behind by James Dean's death and all that his life gave to the film industry as a whole, I felt the need to watch his feature films: Rebel Without A Cause, East of Eden and Giant.
Whilst Rebel Without A Case will no doubt be Dean's defining role, giving an outlet and a powerful mainstream voice to the generation of frustrated teenagers who simply wanted to get away and make a name for themselves, not to be held back by society and authority figures. In Rebel Without A Cause, Dean plays Jim Stark. Feeling oppressed by his parents who want nothing but the best for him, he seeks love and to give himself and a young local boy the life his parents couldn't give either of them. This iconic role made Dean a Hollywood star at 24, opening at cinemas a month after his death.
The puzzling aspect of Dean's popularity though, other than his youthful good looks and role as Jim Stark, is that his acting throughout his mainstream career was far from perfect. In films East of Eden and Giant, he plays contrasting characters but is portrayed as foolish, overly sensitive and immature. Whilst he plays the naive yet charismatic rebel as Jim Stark, this seems to be the role which suits him best, cast as an arrogant but emotionally shallow tycoon in Giant and a frustrated and emotionally confused young man in East of Eden.
Perhaps it is best that he is remembered for his rebellious icon, rather than the warbling drunkard in Giant, or the hapless and weak teenager in Eden.
Having returned - with only 3 hours sleep in the past 24 hours - to Heathrow on Tuesday morning, i completed what was my first holiday abroad. Full thoughts ahead.
Having wanted to go to New York for as long as I can remember (since about the age of 16), staying there for any period of time would have been a dream come true. Thanks to a generous financial input from the parents, I was able to finally book this dream holiday and March 1st was the day I would leave.
The decision to go alone was seemingly huge. Admittedly, it made the experience more overwhelming than going with a friend but getting around was a lot easier as i didn't want to be held back in my travelling around nor my exploration of the vast city.
The biggest deal about travelling to New York was initially that it was my first flight anywhere which made the takeoff and landing so much more spectacular. The rattling of the plane as it gains forward momentum is absolutely incredible, knowing you're taking off into the skies in a lump of metal weighing several tonnes is not only terrifying but also jubilating. The views as we left England, and presumably flew over Wales were fantastic. From afar, bland towns and lakes form wonderful patterns and shapes on a canvas.
Arriving at JFK was a non-event though taking a cab into the heart of New York - on the way to my hotel, situated a block and a half from Times Square - made for great entertainment. Flying past hundreds of cars on the freeways and emerging into a minefield of oversized billboards and an approaching skyline of dazzling lights from world-famous skyscrapers brought the realisation to the forefront of my mind, I was actually in New York. The glitz, the glammer, the ghetto. They were all here, in front of my very eyes.
My exploration of the vast roadways and sidewalks of the world's most famous city took me to several bigname locations: The Empire State Building, Rockerfeller Center and Plaza, Madison Square Garden, Central Park, the UN Headquarters, Chrysler Building, the Ellis Island Immigration Museum and last but certainly not least, the Statue of Liberty.
Of note were the Rockerfeller Center, Empire State Building and Statue of Liberty, each of whom carries an enough weight as worldwide iconic landmarks.
The Rockerfeller Center provides the Top of the Rock Observation Deck, which allows visitors a spectacular view of the vast landscape that surrounds New York City, in particular areas like Brooklyn, Queens and about a quarter of a mile away...Central Park. I went here at night as i was promised brilliant views, and quite frankly i was not disappointed. I managed to capture some amazing shots of the Empire State Building, one of which i'll add to this blog post later.
The Empire State Building in comparison is a bigger building and a bigger landmark but the lack of space allowed on its lower deck meant it was hard to get decent pictures, though i'm sure had i returned at night, it would have been more empty and i would have managed to get some fantastic shots of the millions of lights that glitter around the grand city.
The Statue of Liberty was a bit of anti-climax though this was not helped by the blustery winds which did nothing to aid the experience. The ferry trip which took about half an hour in all (from Southern New York City to Liberty Island to Ellis Island and back again) allowed me to get some great shots of the financial district's towering structures but i would have preferred a quicker mode of transport.
The Statue itself is incredible up close, and whilst up close only means several hundred feet away, it's still a mesmerising sight to behold. Admiring the sheer size of the structure, appreciating the efforts that went into building and transporting its various parts, as well as the eerie giant human features make it an incredible experience in person and whilst it was not the be all and end all i had hoped for, it was still worth the cost of the entire trip just to say i had witnessed the masterpiece in person.
Other matters aside, the trip was marvellous. If anything, i now want to move on and see other parts of the world, though California remains another area i would like to visit should the opportunity arise.
All in all, a fantastic chance to explore the world's most famous city, and there was little complain about in earnest. People warn of the crime, the pollution and the rudeness of the people of New York City. During my stay, i saw nothing to support the crime scares, pollution is present anywhere with vehicles, and despite the worrying large number of people talking to themselves and the impatient nature and poor driving of various cab drivers around the city, the people i met were very friendly and made the holiday pleasant.
During my month-long stay in Guildford in December, i was treated to a somewhat surreal albeit entertaining tv show. Titled Ghost Adventures, it follows Zak Bagans, Nick Groff and Aaron Goodwin, three adults who travel the globe in the search of genuine footage and/or soundbites of ghosts or spirits.
Whilst many would scoff at the sheer idea that ghosts exist, the show does its best to make the whole sensation enthralling and entertaining. Sure, ghosts may not exist and we still don't seem to have any concrete evidence to suggest either way, but the very idea that spirits of those now dead walking among us is certainly an interesting and exciting prospect.
Being a cynic myself, i found it hard to take on board what Bagans and Co were trying to drill into my mind. They clearly feel that ghosts are a genuine phenomenon so who am i to take that away from them?
Using EMF detectors to trace spiritual evidence and EVP recorders (Electronic voice phenomenas), as well as other high-tech equipment such as UV and nightvision cameras, they are locked in some of the most haunted locations on the planet in the hope of provoking spirits to speak to them or even film their subtle movements. Their style of ghost hunting has been criticised for being disrespectful for they actively look to antagonise whatever it is they believe inhabits these locations, and they go out of their way to provoke whatever response they can garner.
As much as i am on the fence with regards to ghosts existing or not; for i would love to believe they are here among us but i'm also sceptical as to just how people can prove either way, this programme not only provides light-hearted entertainment but also often fascincating footage and soundbites. Of course, there are many occasions where crew members could easily be faking sounds and over acting to make it seem like ghosts are present, but trying to find flaws in this show would be to take away any fun it seems to want to concoct.
Recommended to cynics and believers alike, Ghost Adventures is certainly something else.
In the mould of Juno and 500 Days of Summer comes this 1980s slant on the rom-com genre.
Jessie Eisenberg stars as James - the nerd - who is lost in a mess of life opportunities but clueless on how to act on them. When he finds work at Adventureland, a lame small-town theme park, he meets Em (played by Kristen Stewart) who is in a whole world of confusion herself. As the two become close, it is clear that their backgrounds have impacted their lives more than they would care for and as outside factors do their best to ruin their relationship, it is up to the two of them to finally make something positive happen in their complicated lives.
Setting the film in 1987 seems odd for a style of film better suited to modern times, what with the Indie scene so thriving with films like Juno and 500 Days of Summer being such prominent examples of pop culture dictating relationships. Whilst the soundtrack certainly provides a familiar edge here, it doesn't exactly complement the story or any particular scenes as well as in the aforementioned titles.
The premise is yet another 'nerd falls in love with cute girl' piece and Stewart's brooding aura certainly helps create a barrier for her man to break down if he is to win her over, passed her dark and broken past but there rarely seems to be any doubt as to the film's outcome but that could be said for any in the same field.
No performances stand out, perhaps due to the goofy nature of the piece or because there is never any real depth to any of the characters, instead all that is presented is a set of archetypal teen figures, none of which would really benefit from an exhaustive back history. Whilst this is not necessarily a negative notch against the film as a whole there is a lack of depth to the characters and the audience rarely feels a bond with any of players on display.
For what it's worth, Adventureland is an enjoyable fare. The only real problem is that it never excels in any department and thus suffers as a result.
Drew Barrymore’s directorial debut provides a limp but inoffensive tale of triumph and love in back-alley America.
Stepping into the Indie film role once again, Ellen Page plays Bliss Cavendar, a small town girl whose banal life takes a turn for the better when she discovers the world of Roller Derby, a fast-paced and aggressive sport involving competing roller blading teams. Bliss finds that she is a rollerblading natural and soon becomes a first team star, though keeping it from her parents is harder than she realises and tensions arise. Meeting a young man along the way, Bliss is forced to juggle her relationship with him and that of her best friend, resulting in a breakdown of its own. It ultimately becomes apparent that Bliss' happiness is the most important thing, and her roller derbying provides her with a release she has never experienced before.
The only real criticism here is that the roller derby aspect provides little actual appeal or interest. Whilst providing the core story catalyst in the finale and through Bliss’s motivations for moving things on in her life, the sport is somewhat unorthodox and not as simple to appreciate or acknowledge as a story parallel as, say, football.
That aside, the film does little wrong but also fails to sparkle. Acting for the most part is solid – though Eve’s one liners are hard to take seriously – and the sentiments on display are standard to that of any slushy Indie film . There is nothing here of note and the film will undoubtedly be lost amongst the many similar better titles within the genre, as bigger and better films dominate the cinema landscape.
A tale of shallow physical affairs and finding the values behind the meaning of life, Up in the Air demonstrates the hardship of being made redundant, whilst retaining the qualities that can make and break a relationship.
George Clooney plays the man with the routine, Ryan Bingham; employed by a corporate human resources department, his career consists of flying around the USA and informing people that they are no longer in work. When he finally meets a woman who seems to share his values and casual interests, he sees behind the callous nature of his work and believes his purpose in life has takennew meaning and that settling down is the only way to guarantee ultimate happiness.
For all of Clooney’s charm and elegant grace on screen, his performance here offers more ambiguity. His initial casual relationship with Alex reinforces the very shell of his work; he is emotionally detached and clinical in separating his sexual path with the cold and unnerving task and job terminator. But it is his ability to detour from his usual uninspiring Romeo archetypal character which opens the audience’s eye. Where he lectures of the importance of removing all baggage (physical and emotional) in order to make one’s career more efficient and easier to manage, he realises how isolated he has become from forming any genuine relationships, including that of his family.
Meeting Alex along the way, a fellow workaholic and unattached traveller, Ryan believes he has met the woman of his dreams. Mature, attractive and seemingly committed to no-strings sex, it appears to be the perfect woman. However, all is not as it seems, as he discovers that she has kept true to her word, keeping her personal life separate from her work much to Ryan’s shock and bemusement.
Whilst Up in the Air tells a poignant tale, the values and beliefs it delivers are straightforward and pack a punch. The acting across the board is decent, especially from Jason Batemen (playing Bingham’s boss) and Clooney himself as the lone traveller. The only real criticism is that of the film’s final few scenes, which lack any real inquisition from Bingham and if nothing else, drive home the sense of detachment that his life brings with it.
A thoroughly enjoyable albeit sombre fare, tightened up by fine acting and a solid structure.
