Degrees of Separation: Bette Midler to Angelina Jolie

A game that me and my sis play.

1. Bette Midler starred in Hocus Pocus (1993) alongside Kathy Najimy.
2. Kathy Jajimy was the loud, larger-than-life Sister Mary Patrick in Sister Act (1992), which also starred Whoopi Goldberg.
3. Whoopi Goldberg was in Made in America (1993) with Will Smith.
4. Will Smith was in Wild Wild West (1999) with Salma Hayek.
5. Salma Hayek was in From Dusk Till Dawn (1996) with George Clooney.
6. George Clooney was in Ocean's Eleven (2001) with Brad Pitt.
7. Brad Pitt was in Mr and Mrs Smith (2005) with Angelina Jolie

Alternatively, another route I thought of a couple of days later:

1. Bette Midler starred in Hocus Pocus (1993) alongside Kathy Najimy.
2. Kathy Jajimy was the loud, larger-than-life Sister Mary Patrick in Sister Act (1992), with Harvey Keitel.
3. Harvey Keitel was in Thelma and Louise (1991) which had a young Brad Pitt.
4. Brad Pitt was in Mr and Mrs Smith (2005) with Angelina Jolie.

Film 2010 : Episode 9 - December 8th

NOT AIRED YET

Film 2010 : Episode 8 - December 1st

TO WATCH ON IPLAYER / REMOTE RECORD

Film 2010 : Episode 7 - November 24th

RECORDED ONTO DVD - YET TO WATCH

Film 2010 : Episode 6 - November 17th

Film 2010 : Episode 5 - November 10th

Film 2010 : Episode 4 - November 3rd

Diney-Pixar collaborations

Watched Up (2009) again last night on Blu-Ray. A truly delightful spectacle that I found hugely entertaining, thoughtful and poetic. Made me curious about previous collaborations, purely for the sake of nerdy trivia!...

(From Wikipedia)

1995 Toy Story

Dir. John Lasseter; Story: director, Pete Docter, Andrew Stanton, Joe Ranft

1998 A Bug's Life

Dir. John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton; Story: directors, Joe Ranft

1999 Toy Story 2

Dir. John Lasseter, Lee Unkrich, Ash Brannon; Story: directors bar Unkrich, Pete Docter, Andrew Stanton

2001 Monster's Inc

Dir. Pete Docter, Lee Unkrich, David Silverman; Story: Pete Docter, Jill Culton, Jeff Pidgeon, Ralph Eggleston

2003 Finding Nemo

Dir. Andrew Stanton, Lee Inkrich, Story: Andrew Stanton

2004 The Incredibles

Dir. Brad Bird, Story: Brad Bird

2006 Cars

Dir. John Lasseter, Joe Ranft; Story: directors Jorgen Klubien

2007 Ratatouille

Dir. Brad Bird, Jan Pinkava; Story: directors, Jim Capobianco

2008 WALL-E

Dir. Andrew Stanton; Story by director, Pete Docter

2009 Up

Dir. Pete Docter, Bob Peterson; Story: directors, Thomas McCarthy

2010 Toy Story 3

Dir. Lee Unkrich; Story: director, John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton

Pillars of the Earth - Ep.6

A near feature-length finale (perhaps the amalgamation of 2-3 episodes).

The grisley death-toll of 'characters we like' is kept to a minimum ie. we don't care about the ones that don't see the closing credits.

All loose ends are wrapped up, though in a rather complicated, rushed and sometimes incoherent way. There is a pervading sense of tension throughout, as our sense of expectation is constantly being toyed with: you can't help but think something macabre and unexpected might happen to 'the good lot' at any given moment.

What struck me most about the final instalments is the idea that grudges, ideas, delusions of power and grandeur can be so long-held over the course of 9 years or so - and to what end?... At least that amount of time passes during the course of this last epsiode, and even more throughout the entire narrative of Ken Follet's epic.

Perhaps a more realistic tone would have been to say "it's best to live life with what you've been given, rather than spending the majority of it chasing it for something seemingly unattainable". The annoying thing about the narrative is that he actually rewards his characters with their variable sufferings, thereby inviting the reader/viewer to dream fantastically that all things work out in the end: that uneducated crowds are patient, and easily susceptible to reason, eloquent and loquatious logic; that powerful monarchs and beuraucrats can be brought down to earth by the common man/any Tom, Dick and Harry; that true and pure love can find it's way despite all limitations of distance and political obstacle; and it is possible to bump into the family you never knew purely by chance and coincindence.

Whilst I obviously have huge misgivings about the apparent message and narrative of the final parts of this epic interpretation, I did find it rather compelling and engaging to watch, tense and suspenseful till the end, and on the whole rather satisfying in general.

No doubt, had the my observations been taken into consideration (a complete absence of any fairy-tale ending, some deliciously evil injustices still prevalent, taking out at least one more 'goodie' character) the story would perhaps not be the apparent 'Best-Seller' it is now, or worthy of its critical acclaim. It's just my personal taste, and how I would have liked to have seen it pan out, adhering to a sense of realism...

Pillars of the Earth: Ep. 5

A little more optimistic - a roller-coaster of plot twists, and unexpected turns.

Perhaps learning a thing or two from the politically strategic Prior, Alfred (Tom Builder's biological son) forces and appoints himself the successor to his father. With this new appointment, and added wealth, he's now in a position to similarly force a marriage upon Aliena (desperately destitute following the burning of her cotton trade, and needing to finance her brother's knighthood and Earldom). She in turn is torn between her natural romantic sensibility towards the 'Red Head' Jack, and her promise to her father - in one of the earlier episodes before his death - to reinstate her brother as Earl of Shirling. Duty and honour take precedence, and she reluctantly accepts.

Maude is defeated, is forced to flee to France, and gets less than five minute's screen time.

The conniving Bishop is threatened and confronted by the incestuous duo (Mother and Son), forced to honour his promise, and they again concoct another devious strategy: to finally make a last play for the son's ascension to Earldom, and the Bishop's succession to Archbishop of Canterbury.

The narrative seems more like an exposition of the seeming hypocrisy, injustice, and lack of common sense amongst the main protagonists of the series, as well as Church and Royalty in general... Ideals, power, titles, ceremony, protocol are all ultimately inconsequential. God, it seems, has abandoned Kingsbridge, and it's constituents. There's a strong romantic and familial drive/message in this penultimate episode.

I didn't quite understand Jack's need to go to France alone, without his mother. After all, she's got nothing left in England left either, unless she truly is a sort of witch that can predict the future...

Some predictions for the next episode

There was a hint of Arthur's sister having some sort of Romantic attachment to Jack (especially her eagerness to hide Jack's stolen ring), which I'm sure will be explored in the final episode - perhaps by Alieana's death?...

Jack is sure to encounter the exiled Maude, perhaps by gaining fame for helping build the Parisian Landmark.

It would be a bit too predictable for Jack and Aeliana to be together happily ever after (and expect there to be some sort of nasty twist in that regard).

I can't see justice being served for all parties concerned. It would run counter-intuitive for the way the series has gone so far. More likely, is the domination of the powers of the establishment, in spite of their evil deeds, yet a glimmer of hope for the future: be that a vengeful wife getting her own on the newly instated Earl of Shirling, a would-be-Queen's son fighting for the Crown of England, a happy and peaceful family living in exile and poverty, or even the use of a ring to reinstate a just monarchy.

One of the better episodes. I look forward to the next episode!

Pillars of the Earth: Ep. 4

A thoroughly depressing Episode... Melodrama supersedes balance of story, and yet another character departs the series indefinitely.

The cliffhanger from the previous episode is resolved as 'red head' and Prior resume their roles. The Cain and Abel story/rivalry is developed a bit further, as some unexpected opportunities arise for the wannabe Tom Builders. A seeming sexual rejection sends one-a-Monking, and further efforts are made to convert the heathen-kind. There's a possibility for lost son and father to reconcile, and truths to be finally revealed.

But the ever-plotting and conniving Bishop (whose ambitions are set for Archbishop of Canterbury) and Mother-Son opportunists do their best to decimate any semblance of a happy ending, and ally themselves with the newly empowered Maude with devastating effect.

The 'empress' Maude, in turn, becomes outwitted, and her seeming advantage over the King becomes neutralized. War ensues again, and it's all a rather tragic mess...

How is this all going to end?
Who's going to survive this never-ending political entaglement?
Will the Cathedral ever get built?

I'm guessing there might be some delicious irony about the new Archbishop of Canterbury owning and residing in the Cathedral when it's eventually built. But that would be quite harsh. With the way things have gone hitherto, you never know for sure!...

Still, curiosity engages my interest to watch 'till the end, rather than an appreciation of a work of art. (This isn't).

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

Thoroughly thought-provoking, intellectually stimulating take on evolution/artificial intelligence/the reaches of technology. Took a while to get used to from the very beginning, and once you're sort of in the groove of following, you're thrown off again towards the end! But after a while, I think that's what I liked about it.

The scientific and technological visuals are eerily ahead of it's time considering it was made in the late 60s (spot the iMac with webcam, the iPhone and iPad!) as well as an authentically realistic quality (much like Ridley Scott's 'Alien'), though was thrown off slightly by the descent (or ascent) into Surrealism closing the movie. Definitely opens up a new level of artistry (to me).

A truly artistic movie, that is sure to have inspired intense debate, and doesn't seem to conform to any formulaic movie constructs I've come across so far. Something that appears to be completely original! Definitely worth looking into the elements of it's making, and trying to read into it: Also Spake Zarathustra, Gayena, the tone poem/philosophical text used, as well as the specific imagery employed (the 'monolith' representing death?, the wheel).

Would put 85% if that were possible! Down 15% purely because of the enjoyment factor. Definitely an intellectual excercise, though not as entertaining or enjoyable a movie as other 5-Star/100% fare. You wouldn't take your girlfriend to see it, unless she was a bonafide nerd!(Originally composed on my Rotten Tomatoes account!).

Film 2010 : Episode 3 - October 27th

Episode 3

Broadcast: BBC1 at 10:45pm, Wednesday - 27th October 2010

The Kids are Alright

With Annette Bening, Julianne Moore, Mark Ruffalo, Directed by Lisa Cholodenko.

Interviews with all of the above, bar Annette Bening. Julianne Moore says "Films reflect popular culture, instead of vice versa", and this film is no exception. Mark Ruffalo says: "Hollywood sees money, and doesn't give a crap about what you're making".

Claudia loves and recommends this. Says it's an Indie hit, and received a standing ovation at the Sundance Festival. With talk of Oscar nods, she's rooting for Moore as being more deserved than Bening - the former being the more likeable and endearing character in the movie. She acknowledges that the movie is sold as a Comedy Drama.

Danny says the movie has a truthful realism. Whilst he is a Moore fan in general, he's rooting for Mark Ruffalo to get an Oscar nod, being the dark horse stand-out performance in the movie. Would say that this would be his Family Values movie of the week.

Top 5 Scenes featuring a Bath (with Chris Hewitt):

1. Fatal Attraction (the last closing scene, featuring the demise of Glenn Close!...)
2. Spartacus - amusingly alludes to the apparent subtext of someone gauging the other's sexual preference. That scene was removed from the original, but was later restored with Tony Curtis re-dubbing lines, and Anthony Hopkins doing Oliver Reed's lines.
3. The Shining - the scene involving Jack Nicholson encountering a naked lady who transforms to something more grotesque as he embraces her...
4. Les Diaboliques (1955) Directed by Henri-Georges Clouzot, when a corpse rises from a bath.
5. Nightmare on Elm Street - When Freddie Cruger's knife-blade hand emerges from the bath whilst an unsuspecting female is half-sleeping in it!

Hewitt's attempt at humour fell rather flat in my view, but there was no denying his expertise, and esoteric knowledge. You could assume that he probably came up with them off the top of his head without any research!

Danny Leigh apparently hates Twitter, as Claudia was about to read out a few messages. He says that he is happy to see The Shining there, but that the scene referenced was the 'second' most disturbing. The first was, in fact, a falatio scene... Claudia is eager to move on!...

The Frank Capra Retrospective at the BFI

It Happened One Night (1934)

Peter Bradshaw (of The Guardian) is present, a Capra fan. Talks of the movie as a "forthright muscular punch in the cinema, with it's slushy, idealistic sense of romance". Felt he was a little pretentious.

Danny calls himself a Capra sceptic (which Bradshaw responds with "Oh Dear").

Claudia says she's just happy that Clark Gable's in it!

Apparently the actors didn't want to do the film. They hated the script, and a friendship between the two protagonists was bourne out of this mutual contempt for the film. And it shows in every scene!

Mr Smith Goes to Washington (1939)

A controversial movie.

Danny talks of "the head-achey legacy with Capra, that a simpleton is needed to save the government". He briefly alludes to Sarah Palin with the Tea Party movement, topical in the news that week.

Bradshaw interjects, disagrees, and says that he sees James Stewart more as Obama. For a number of years, Obama was referred to as the junior Senator from Illinois. Thought that was a good point, which kept Danny Leigh on the quiet.

On James Stewart, Bradshaw says that he has a "touch of dandyism, like a ballet dancer, a fastidious version of Gene Kelly". A comparison is made with Clark Gable in It Happened One Night, they looked practically the same, before Gable went on to do Gone with the Wind.

On The London Film Festival finishing tomorrow...

Highlights?

Bradshaw says that he enjoyed Black Swan, by Darren Aronofsky. As the subject material has much to do with ballet, he says comparisons to Michael Powell's 'Red Shoes' are bound to be made. And most would stand inferior, except for this. It's vulgar, mad, and in fantastically bad taste.

Claudia, the whole while is excitedly giddish (annoying) in agreement. Danny differs in opinion, and is less enthused, which Bradshaw frames as "a difference of emphasis, as we say in the business". Tw*t. He continues: "There are some seriously brilliant moments, which reminded me of Rosemary's Baby in it's toxicity".

Danny rebuffs by saying that it's one thing to compare the movie to Rosemary's Baby, and another to compare it to a Marilyn Manson video! Thought that was well funny! There's no love lost between the two, as Claudia is trying to act as the intermediary. However she is in agreement with Bradshaw, with the latter calling for a Referee (presumably to Red Card Danny)...

Danny says that The London Film Festival takes place in the backdrop of British cinema in crisis. For him, the standout, memorable highlights have to be:

- Archipelago (2010) Direected by Joanna Hogg

- Neds (2010) by Peter Mullan

It was nice to see Danny standing up for British interests, and bringing attention to the situation, not caught up in the glitz and glamour of Hollywood as Bradshaw and Claudia seem to be...

'How I Ended this Summer' was the film that won the festival.

A bold choice, a seeming consensus among the three.

The Hunter (2010) - Directed by Raffi Pitts

Made in Tehran in 2009. Film 2010 had an interview with the Director, who's apparently banned from the country for making the movie.

Claudia said she liked the film, that it was a movie of two halves. The first was very powerful, the second, not quite so. In the context of 'Iranian cinema', it's an important movie to the genre, according to Danny.

Interview with Guillermo Del Toro

With Hobbit news this week, with Martin Freeman playing the title role, it leads on to the next feature - an interview with Guillermo Del Toro who famously walked away from the project.

Showing clips of 'Pan's Labyrinth', the Director spoke of himself as experiencing "lucid dreaming" as a very young child. He saw monsters, was terrified of them, and made a deal with them (to not scare him going to the toilet, for example) - a deal which allowed him to become friends with them.

Del Toro says that in movies and art, there are two ways to show things: the happy side, and the darker side. The first he found to be very boring. The latter he finds much more attractive.

Dave Karger is the interviewer.

Brings attention to 'Venetian Notebooks' that Del Toro keeps in planning movies. The Director says that he thinks and writes in Spanish. Sort of like a diary, but not daily.

Notes for "Cronos" are lost to 'Jim' Cameron who misplaced it!...

When he received awards for that movie, Del Toro says he was crying with a giant cheque in his hand. He was happy for two reasons:

A - It was recognition of his work.

B - He wasn't going to jail! The movie was in debt for $1/2 million!

Thought that was quite funny, but the interviewer wasn't feeling it.

On walking away from The Hobbit after so long on pre-production, how hard/difficult was it?

Del Toro: The hardest decision, felt heartache, like recently being widowed.

What to expect next?

Del Toro: 'At the Mountains of Madness' - produced by Jim Cameron. He has been trying to do this film for 13 years!

Spiderhole (2009)

Claudia says she scares easily, but not by this. Reminded her of Jaws 2, and drew attention to its bulky dialogue. Danny says that it has much the sentiment of The Shining, and makes a comment about a 'giffer' in the movie. Basically low-budget British Horror.

Horror DVDs to recommend for tomorrow:

Danny's choice is Dead of Night (1945) by Ealing Studios.

Claudia's choice is Rosemary's Baby, which she found terrifying!

A look at 'Burlesque' (with Cher and Christina Aguilera) closes the programme.

Looks terrible!

28 Days Later

A surprisingly engaging and compelling Horror movie. Brendan Gleeson, Cillian Murphy, Christopher Eccleston lead a very strong and credible acting cohort, together with the two female newcomers. Very impressed with their capabilities (the former in particular sporting various 'out of character' accents convincingly - two Englishmen and an Irishman, but who's who?). Great acting.

Raises a lot of ethical questions admidst compromising circumstances, much like The Beach. There's also a subtle commentary on the nature of government, the police, and the armed forces. There's emotional pathos too for a few brief moments, but that essentially takes second seat to the blood, horror and apocalyptic overtones that define the movie.

There was ample opportunity for cheese, shmaltzy dialogue, and situations that conform to expectation. But Director Danny Boyle subverts, entertains, and surprises us at almost every turn. Of particular amusement is the curt and direct dismissal of a potential relationship blossoming early on in the movie:'Do you want us to find a cure and save the world, or do you want us to fall in love and fuck? Plans are pointless. Staying alive is as good as it gets.'

The so-called zombies are genuinely terrifying, and are effectively potrayed using all the tricks of the trade, and then some. Heightened for maximum effect.

I'm undecided about the ending. The Director had three options from which to choose from, it seems: one is a happy ending, one is a grim pro-feminist statement, and the last is deliberately ambiguous. The movie shows all three! And whilst that's a unique way to finish - giving the audience a choice of what to accept - it betrays a small lack of confidence on the Director's part, indecisive about one particular ending, and wanting to please everybody. However, I'm a little more consigned to the former view though. It's quite typical for movies to end so singularly, and definitively. Danny Boyle again subverts expectation (also by the manner of its execution) by ending in the way he has chosen - and the movie's all the better for it.

Curious to read more Alex Garland stuff.

Lady Vengeance

Lady Vengeance

Just the DVD Menu.

Baroque instruments.

Old Boy had a Shostakovich-ian vibe...

Curious about the other music in the rest of the other two in the trilogy...

Vivaldi and Paganini - connotations of the Devil...

A real dark sense of humour....

Shock value

Demands repeat viewings!...

Touches of surrealism that a tasteful and effective...

You totally can't see stuff coming...

Insanely unexpected...

But plausible.

Ending, medieval music....

Minstrels...

Music kinda beautiful...

Scott Pilgrim vs the World

Roger Ebert once wrote of Luc Besson as a high school kid with fantasies who was instantly allowed to become a film-maker. I recall him striking a rather derogatory tone. Personally, I don't think such a comparison is necessarily a bad thing. The same could be said for Edgar Wright, and I thought his direction of Scott Pilgrim vs the World was inspired!

I think people past a certain age won't appreciate this film (namely those in the years more advanced than 30). A harsh generalisation, but true methinks. That's not being derogatory, compared to the seemingly emminent Ebert, but just a matter of fact.

The movie's aesthetic and feel draws heavily upon the computer games of yore: the MIDI based music and tones (particularly the rather ingenious opening!), the Mortal Kombat/Tekken-style beat-em-ups, and the stylishly ultra-violent confrontations that never yield a single drop of blood, but rather points and coins (an obvious reference to Nintendo's Super Mario!). It's all very 80s and 90s. In common with that particular genre is the frenetic visuals, the uncontainable energy and verve that dominate and dictate the action and the story. If you can get past this initial onslught, as well as accept the various trappings of the 'comic-book'-come-movie style, Scott Pilgrim is a movie that becomes very hard to dislike!

At the heart of this conflation of genres is a fairly linear storyline - perhaps a little bit of a piss take for action movies/martial arts movies during the same period. Boy loser likes a girl, and girl likes him back. But in order for their relationship to materilise, boy has to earn it by passing through various levels ('defeating girl's seven evil exes'!). This inevitably leads to the ultimate boss at the end!

My only misgiving about the movie was that dramatically, there was some potential for the protagonist (and the protagonist's Chinese teenager girlfriend for that matter) to become an evil ex themselves, thereby perhaps repeating this fairly warped concept. But the movie is far too neat and convenient to further explore that territory, for fear of alienating it's target audience. Instead of complicated plot, the movie compensates with colourful and interesting characters, who in their comic bombasticness contribute to a satisfying and entertaining genre pastiche.

Scott Pilgrim is no genius of a movie to say the least. But it's neatly directed. With great and quirky visuals, a few stereotypes, deliberately over-exaggerated characters, it's jolly good fun for 80s and 90s computer game nostalgia, and nerds who never got the girl. I really liked it!

The Last Airbender

Better than 'Clash of the Titans' and 'Golden Compass'; more interesting and multi-faceted than a Star Wars prequel. A pimped up martial arts fantasy (with a handful of fights), that has the potential to be deep and meaningful, but is drowned by hasty and clumsy direction. Still engaging enough to watch.

Hadn't been to the cinema in ages, and felt like going tonight. Choices that I would have been interested to see: 'Knight and Day' - which looked like a more-American MI:2, only with a different leading lady; 'The A-Team' - which looks like a no-brainer contrived to fit the original, inevitably falling short of expectation; which left 'The Last Airbender'.

I had seen trailers for that last movie about a year ago, and had been quite excited about it. The visuals coupled with a seemingly authentic martial arts proponent looked quite impressive indeed.

I was subsequently dismayed to hear that it has been widely lambasted by the media at large: derided, critically panned, the scorn of all the popular voices pertaining to the film world.

Knowing this, I still wanted to see it for myself. I have had a crappy past week, and was up for some martial arts fantasy to potentially be engrossed with - irrespective of the quality. It was more in tune with my sensibilities compared to the other two.

I'm glad I did see it.

Make no mistake about it. This is no work of genius, or a masterpiece to say the least. But there are elements of it that make for captivating, engaging, and entertaining cinema. It's definitely worth watching, and didn't think it a waste of the £1.50 extra I paid to see it in 3D, in addition to the £0.80 for the glasses I neglected to bring with me.

There is a serious attempt to do justice to the material - a certain respect and gravitas imbued into the production, which is in part underlined and helped by James Newton Howard's score (The Dark Knight). There's a definite sense of grandiosity. Locations in Vietnam, and New Zealand influence the aesthetic.

But it's complicated and complex - and not necessarily in a high sophistication sort of way. Very dense in esoteric Avatar-ism, which I'm sure only the most die-hard fans of the anime cartoon series would be most comfortable following. For the lay, such as myself, it was a struggle. But you get the general jist of what's going on. There's a couple of genuinely surprising twists in the movie that keep the drama interesting, but it's not explicit enough - you're left questioning your sanity a bit throughout the movie: Did that just happen, or didn't it?

Moderately amused by how all the primary villains were straight up English or American, despite looking explicitly Asian, and of a 'foreign land'. Would have been better if there was more of a culturally diverse flavour, the odd subtitle here and there, even if it was gibberish (Lord of the Rings).

15% action scenes/martial arts sequences that left us wanting more. Much like the Duel of the Fates sequence at the end of The Phantom Menace - you wanted more. But what you did see was fairly spectacular.

Ultimately it's clumsy and awkward direction that fails the movie. In better, more capable hands, this really could have been something spectacular. A truly epic fantasy. Some cringe moments, punctuate the movie quite frequently, as do comparisons with other epics that wreak of contrivance (see Anakin and Amidala and the non-chemistry between them). Whilst we identify with the plight of the protagonists, we don't feel or identify with the protagonists themselves - we don't care about them. A shame because there's huge potential there. That the Avatar Shaolin dude is who he is becase he abandoned responsibilities forced on him by his parents, makes for huge dramatic potential... Taken to the wheyside by the special effects, but not drowned by them completely.

I think is says something about a movie, when, in it's opening week, it's only available in 3D. As if it needed that gimmick for anyone to see it, a 2D offering would be expectantly empty/deserted - I imagine the marketing analysts were thinking.

Visually spectacular, full of promise and potential. The action sequences are intelligent, engaging, enthralling, though sparse. Delivers in part, but not a wholly rewarding or satisfying experience. Definitely not a no-brainer though, gotta keep your noggin' on to follow and appreciate the good stuff of which there is much of.

The Ring

Freaky stuff! Definitely had some genuine jumpy moments.

From the get go, it felt quite contrived... You've got the main 'kids' of the movie looking blatantly spooky themselves, the likeably attractive heroine (Naomi Watts), the dream-hunk Hollywood-esque male lead (who has an uncanny resemblance to Matthew McConoughay), and the formula is near-complete.

What immediately ensues is some shoddy acting by the intermediary cast, and some convenient plot development.

As an example: Naomi Watts (Rachel) and her son Aidan are at the wake of a recently deceased cousin at the start of the movie. The mother of the deceased says how she has trawled the internet to find similar cases, and is bewildered by the incident and has no idea of how to begin looking for an explanation. At this precise moment, Naomi Watts (who also happens to be an investigative journalist) comes across her first clue by flicking through an obviously placed photo album. Within the cover is an undeveloped ticket receipt with the address slapped bang in the middle in obvious print. That the mother and the police would have missed this completely is a little hard to believe, and a little insulting to the audience in my view.

But this movie is far from trying to be an accurate portrayal of reality. It's a supernatural horror story. And for that effectual and affectual intent it works exceedingly well.

The introduction of Brian Cox's character mid-way through the movie marked the first spark of emotional engagement for me. And the story commanded my attention from there on. Aside from some randomly unexplained moments (the demise of Brain Cox's character), and even the nature of the ending, there were some brilliant twists that made for an interesting story, with plenty to make you jump about for. I have to admit, I was a little scared!

That the Direction wasn't perhaps as attentive to detail as I would have liked (taking into account more of the emotional nuances, or even the human drama) is perhaps no real surprise coming from Gore Verbinski of Pirates of the Carribean fame. He seems more adept at genre realisation (ie. Hollywood Blockbusters in the style of Michael Bay, or Horror), than the dramatisation of the human condition - and that shows through.

Interesting too, that the movie is made by Dreamworks. Spielberg was reportedly in talks to remake the South Korean hit 'Old Boy' with Will Smith way back when (perhaps around the same time as this was being made). But thankfully, plans never came to fruition. Knowing that this was a remake of a Japanese Classic makes me wonder how much better the original might be. I would imagine it to be more minimalist (not on a Hollywood budget), more raw and elemental, and very much look forward to checking it out sometime in the near future! (As soon as my Blockbuster Rental List allows, or funds become more available).

There Will Be Blood (2007)

Just finished watching There Will Be Blood for a second time...

Completely emotionally engaged with this the whole way through this time around. Remember finding this a difficult watch before. I don't think I understood it, or appreciated it - I just didn't get it. I guess I wasn't receptive to it at the time, and wasn't under the right circumstances ie. requiring all of my concentration, free from trivial distractions...

But reading up on it sometime afterwards, compelled me to give it another viewing. That the movie can be viewed as a wider metaphor for America's relationship with Money, Power and Religion make for a compelling and complex narrative. And being of a more serious, contemplative disposition on this occasion, my mindset was more receptive to the movie.

Viewing it this time around, you can see every frame has meaning. Every nuance, deliberate. The sonic choices deeply effectual to the story being told. There are no clear winners, losers, or heroic individuals in this epic tale. Rather an exploration of how things may have come to be, where the darker shades of humanity feel very fierce and palpable in poetry.

Loved it. Definitely on my list of favourite films.

The Sucker Punch Trailer

A Comment I posted on Nickel-Eye News in response to questions about the new 'Sucker Punch' Trailer:

I am quite excited. Looks like a fan-boy's dream with lots of movie-pop-culture references done in the style of 'Charlie's Angels meets Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow', but with a mega budget! Am curious as to the absence of John Hamm in the trailer, which seems to suggest he might make more of a cameo...

Similar to yourself, I've always regarded Snyder as a 'style-fetishist' - aesthetic over narrative - and this trailer doesn't do much to change that view. As such, I don't have too many high expectations of the next Superman film.

Superman is arguably 'the' original superhero, and Donner's movie still sets the standard to beat. A successful movie, in my view, would need a story that's well-told, with a sense of gravitas, dignity, and respect. That would have to be balanced with a certain wit and humour that innovates, to resonate with today's audience, rather than replicate Donner's 1978 version (a la Superman Returns!). A tall order for anyone, let alone someone of Snyder's more limited scope, as accomplished as he obviously is.

I fear Snyder's leanings towards style and aesthetic will supersede the Nolans' concept for the character. The narrative power of any compelling story might lose out to an amazing visual: embellished with lots of style, cool, a raw violent tension... He's primarily not a great story-teller, and as such, don't have a lot of confidence in his capacity to bring anything truly special to Superman.

But I reserve judgement until proven otherwise.

'Superman: Man of Steel ' is set to hit screens in 2012.

Pillars of the Earth: Ep. 3

Tom Builder (Rufus Sewell), sporting a more grey-haired appearance, takes a surprsing back-seat in this episode, perhaps amassing no more than six minutes of screen time; and his outlawed lover significantly less.

Set four years later from last episode's events, the series carries on with the formula of brutal and graphic opening. The episode opens with Maude being beseiged in Lincoln Castle surrounded by King Stephen's forces. She's left to starve into submission and surrender. It's left to Maude's brother to come back to save her. The brother succeeds, but gets himself caught by Stephen's men. The same happens to King Stephen in the inevitable confrontation.

Seemingly the sudden playmaker, it's left to Maude to dish out a deal with the primary perpetual conspirators: the evil Archbishop, and the power-hungry mother and son - in ever-increasing wrongness. You know it's not right, but you can't help but watch...

Red-haired Jack, and the noble Prior all get caught up in the mess with quite devastating consequences, a new romantic entaglement retains something potentially happy, positive, and genuinely exciting (a rarity in this rather gritty tale) and we're left on an extremely annoying cliffhanger!

Despite the complexity of the narrative, the episode felt depressingly predictable... The director doesn't know the meaning of subtle! But I still like it, and it still engages, like an early episode of X Factor. Watching more for (unfathomable) loyalty and curiosity from now onwards!

Happy Birthday to Me!...

Following catchup episodes of 'The Middle', a Movie Marathon accompanied with a small bottle of Red Wine and a box of Ferrero Rocher - in solitude. A birthday, for once, without the distraction of family and all the unnecessary nonsense that entails.

Schedule:

Once Upon A Time in the West (1968)

Superman: The Movie (1978)

The Song of Lunch (2010)

Lost in Translation (2003)

There Will be Blood (2007)

Film 2010 : Episode 2 - October 20th

Broadcast: Wednesday, 20th October 2010, BBC 1

Just noticed how the opening credits pertain to the movies they're about to discuss. There's quite a cool montage from the movie, RED (2010), accompanying the Film Programme's rather iconic theme.

Billy Taylor and Dick Dallas' 1967 rendition of 'I Wish I Knew How It Would Feel to Feel Free'

RED Retired and Extremely Dangerous (2010)

Brief 'snippet-sentence' interviews with Bruce Willis (looking quite nonchalant, almost indifferent), Morgan Freeman, and Mary Louise Parker (looking quite aged from 'recent' work on Weeds). Bruce Willis singing the praises of Director Robert Shwentke.

Winkleman described it as 'WRONG' and alluded to a word game she used to play with her family when younger, where in this instance she would be struggling to find the right letters to form a *what-the-fuck?* sound-effect.

Danny says that he's always suspicious of movies where actors look like they're having too much fun, as in Soderbergh's Oceans Eleven, for which he wasn't a fan. Said he was looking forward to seeing the cast list in action, notably Ernest Borgnine, Brian Cox, and Richard Dreyfuss. But it felt like a Pro-Celebrity Golf Tournament. 'Drab' was the closing word of the review, in it's emphatic isolation.

Top 5 John Malkovich Movies by Antonia Quirke:

1. Dangerous Liaisons (1988)
2. Shadow of the Vampire (2000) - praised for playing a German Expressionist Director
3. The Sheltering Sky (1990) - who she deems Malkovich to be at his most natural, like how she imagines him to be in real life: quirky and pretentious.
4. In the Line of Fire (1993) - for how at 40 years old, he's not ashamed to show off a gut hanging out.
5. The Killing Fields (1984) - who Quirke deemed Malkovich an instantly natural star in such an early film.

Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole

Interviews with Director Zack Snyder, and the young actor Jim Sturgess (playing a character called Soren). Snyder says that the story is very Knights of the Round Table-esque. He approached it like he would a live-action movie, and the animators met him half way: this is how I would do it, this is how they (the animators) would do it - so they had a mesh of styles.

Also an interviews with Geoffrey Rush (playing a character called Ezylryb) and Sam Neil who looked a bit crazy, like he didn't have faith in the production as was doing promotional stuff routinely: 'Don't forget your gizzard when flying. It's the most important thing' quite seriously, or words to that effect.

Danny Leigh said that the movie for him, invited a disturbing trip down memory lane for when he was younger it reminded him of Watership Down and Star Wars. A 'Saga of Owls' if you will! Claiming that would probably be his way to sell it! Claudia said that it 'looked magnificent', and Danny said that he would trump that with it 'looking sumptuous'. The flying sequences in particular were praised by both, which bodes well for Snyder's work for Superman. The CGI flying is also fantastic, and works well in 3D, following the trend (How to Train Your Dragon). This is no real kid's flick though, with some heavy Owl-on-Owl violence!

The re-release of Back to the Future - Does it qualify for 'Classic' status?...

A talking-head sequence including:

Boyd Hilton

Anna Smith

Nev Pierce

David Gritten

Huey Lewis

Xan Brooks

Phillip French

Robbie Collin

Bob Gale said that the script was rejected so many times. That Disney weren't too impressed with the idea of a teenage kid alone in a car with his Mum!... Phillip French said that it's a movie with serious issues and tragic undertones. Interesting fact: Eric Stoltz was taken off the shoot six weeks into filming (to be replaced by Michael J Fox) because it wasn't working!

Hailed as a Classic covering major themes, the Frank Capra's 'It's A Wonderful Life' for a different generation.

Danny Leigh loves Crispin Glover, and think the movie's all about him! Says he gets the best line: 'You are my Density!' Hard to disagree. Another interesting fact: apparently the studios wanted him for the sequel, but he refused to do it. So they used a likeness of him, for which he sued, against Steven Spielberg, and was successful! Though it didn't do him favours for his career.

Africa United (2010)

About African kids travelling across 8 countries to get to the World Cup in South Africa. A road movie, by a first-time director. An interview with her. Said she didn't adhere to the first rules of first time Directors: don't work with kids, don't work with animals, watch your budget! She did the complete opposite. Also an interview with the kids. They looked all over for the right cast native to the story, and one of them was found from a newspaper article a year back in the UK.

Claudia says it's sold as a kid's film about football. Danny says that although the nature of the production might have been epic, that's as far as the comparison goes to Slumdog Millionaire. That latter film was a large-scale emotional adventure, compared to this rather small-scale quest. It's an ambitious movie to try and bring serious issues (the HIV epidemic, child soldiers with access to guns) to 12-13 year old kids. Although there's a lot to like, Danny says he has his reservations.

Mary and Max (2009)

Looks fucking crazy! Claymation. Immediately reminds you of Wallace and Gromit, but it's far from it. A dark story with a certain poignancy. A very human story. Danny compares it to Harold and Maude (1971). Excellent voice-casting with Eric Bana, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman whose presence is felt (unlike Despicable Me's voice cast who you hardly notice).

Carlos

About a terrorist... Comes in two formats: 330min version, and the 165 min version. Claudia and Danny both recommend the longer format to see. Originated as a French TV Series. The Director has European arthouse sensibility, but incorporates Hollywood-esque action sequences that easily best RED for a weekend movie.

Interview with Guillermo del Toro

Guilty Pleasures?

The Car (1977) with James Brolin. Has a still of it, and is having it hand-made in steel for everyday use at home in Los Angeles.

What makes you cry?

City Lights (1931) with Charlie Chaplin, especially the ending when she finally realises who he is.

I have to admit...

Wasn't a huge fan of Todd Browning's Dracula. He loves Browning, but never loved Lugosi. He liked him in more wild parts, playing against Karloff, but not on his own.

Wish you had Directed?

Eyes without a Face

Beauty and the Beast (1946) Jean Cocteau

Touch of Evil - Orson Welles

Seven Chances (1925)

Greed (1924) Erich von Stroheim

Most influential filmmaker?

Is sadly not working enough.

Terry Gillingham.

In Brazil (1985) his aesthetic influenced european Directors.

On the night that this particular episode was airing, it was the premiere of 'The Great White Silence' - Captain Scott's tragic polar expedition, which the BFI are to release in May 2011 on DVD. Footage of this closed the episode.

Personal thoughts:

First impressions, they're reacting too heavily to Twitter users, it seems!... Antonia Quirke's Top 5 is supposed to be an antidote to last week's fun-fest by an enthusiast, which by contrast, I found to be quite dull, serious, and self-absorbed. That it's filmed live is also telling. Feels very pressurised and rushed. Would have wanted it to be more relaxed and edited more neatly. Billed as 'with Claudia Winkleman', what about Danny Leigh! Methinks he's got a 'Get out of Jail Free' clause in his contract, in case the programme and it's format go tit's up. Not as engaging as the first episode, but would definitely still continue to watch regardless.

Leonard Nimoy and Jonathan Frakes introducing 'Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan' on Film4 Trek Weekend

Film4 hosted a Star Trek Weekend (16th-17th October) showcasing all ten feature-length movies!

Leonard Nimoy and Jonathan Frakes introduced each movie. Whilst I hoped that the 10min excerpts preceding the feature would have been the same thing (from the descriptions listed on Sky Programme Guide), they were not - much to my disappointment!

I only managed to record, to my knowledge, one excerpt in it's entirety. I might have 'accidentally' recorded the others as an indirect consequence of recording the features, but will have to check that out when I'm more organised.

Below is a transcript of that sole interview, before the showing of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

Leonard Nimony and Jonathan Frakes on Star Trek (5 mins)

Leonard Nimoy:

"Gene Rodenberry had a great vision for Star Trek, and it was that vision that made us the best of what we were, when we were at our best. He was with us for the first two seasons and then was gone. The third season, he was off doing other work. And I think the season, the third season showed it as a result. And when it was over, I was frankly glad that it was over because we were not doing good work and rather than dry this thing further into the ground, why don't we leave it alone, and hope the best of what we did survives. And I think that did happen.

Subsequently when he was asked to make a Star Trek movie, it was right that he was called upon, to do it, but I don't think he was at his best in making decisions about that first movie. He had this sense that it should be different from the series, that it should have a grander look, that we should take advantage of the money and the special effects and so forth, that it should be more intellectual, and less adventurous, so shall we say for lack of a better word he struggled with that story, right down till the very end he was writing writing writing writing, and struggled with it, and then when it came time to make Star Trek II the studio decided it definitely wanted other people at the helm, producing and writing, and I think as a result of the experience on the filming of the First Star Trek Movie, because not only had the story and the script didn't work all that successfully it had also gotten out of hand financially, and they wanted a different kind of leadership taking charge of the film."

Jonathan Frakes:

"When I first got the audition for Star Trek, I went in to meet with the Casting Director. Ultimately I auditioned seven times over six weeks because the original, our Star Trek was made directly for syndication which meant that everyone at Paramount practically has a say in who was going to be cast in their show. It was not a network, it was not made, it was made differently, it was the first hour scripted drama made directly for syndication so a lot of people had their noses in the pot if you will. There were a lot of cooks, so there were a lot of auditions.

I of course, wore the same shirt to every audition, and by the time the seven weeks were up, the shirt walked and put itself on. The last two or three auditions which were for the heads of the studio, Gene Roddenberry would invite me to his office to prepare for the audition with the Direector Cory Allen, who directed the Pilot. And Gene was so passionate about his belief of what life should be like in the 24th Century that he shared that with me, because he wanted Riker to have that same passion, and what he said to me I'll never forget, which was "In the 24th Century, there will be no hunger, there will be no greed, and all the children will know how to read." And he'd wrap his big space-bird arm around me and say "Let's go get you this job" It still gives me [motions goosebumps]. He was awesome."

Leonard Nimoy:

"When I was making Star Trek III and IV, I went to him, I still had great respect for his ideas and his input we gave him ths script and asked him if I could have a meeting and listen to his comments and er, on Star Trek VI I remember I had a profound moment with him where he said ths script works, it makes sense, everything falls into place, it comes together, finally at the end, but he said I'm missing one thing, and I said What is that? and he said We don't know something new and really intriguing about the Klingons. What is it that has made them so angry all these years?

He was absolutely right. And I conveyed that to Nicholas Myer. We could not find a way, given where we were in the process to build on that idea. It was a wonderful idea. And that was the mind that Rodenberry worked with at its best. What has made them so angry all these years. If we could have found that out, what was it about the interior life of their culture, what had happened to them in their past? What had gone wrong in their relationships with eachother, other nations or whatever, where have they lost their way to become so paranoid? So paranoid! And, er, he was right. We didn't capture that. We did a good adventure, but we didn't capture that."

Leonard Nimoy on Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (5 mins)

Leonard Nimoy:

"Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan put Star Trek back on the water so to speak, and er, it recaptured the energy, it recaptured the chemistry, of the cast. Nicholad Myer who Directed it er, had kind of a jaunty point of view about the whole thing. Sort of high jinx space, er, he had a very strong sense of what might work dramatically, er Hare Benett captured a very strong idea to bring back Ricardo Montablan who had been one of our better guest stars in one of our better good episodes. And we were back on the rails now. The music had a very jaunty naval feeling about it, er the ships were something like submarines out of water but in space instead, er there was that naughtical sense about it. Hare Bennet came to my home to invite to be in the film and said 'How would you like to have a great death scene?'. And I thought if this is going to be the last of the Star Trek movies, and if the Spock character can be given a glorious end, saving his ship mates and the ship from disaster, and go out in a blaze of glory, why not do that. And that's the way I went to work on Star Trek II.

By the time it came to do the death scene, I had second thoughts because I realised by then, that we had in fact recaptured the sense of Star rek at it's best, and that now I was going to take myself out of it. And I thought, I wondered if I had made a mistake. At the same time there was a wonderful scene written for us, the ending scene between Kirk and Spock, a very moving scene had been written, and it played extremely well. When we were doing the scene, Benett came to me on the set and said 'Could you do or say anything that would give us a string to lead us to another film, another idea, or a continuation of some kind of Spock philosophy, or whatever. I said 'Yes, I think I have an idea'. Before I'd entered the chamber where Spock is about to die saving the ship, I went to the unconscious McCoy, and I put my hand on his face in a mind-meld gesture, and I simply said: 'Remember'."

A History of Horror with Mark Gatiss - Ep. 1

Episode 1: Frankenstein Goes to Hollywood

This feels like an incredibly personal series, and Gatiss has no intention of hiding this: a 'personal passion' he's 'unashamedly selective' of his favourite films and periods. Described himself as a morbid child in his youth, with an affinity and leaning towards horror and the macabre that has remained.

Cites Phantom of the Opera (1925) of the Silent Film period for when Horror started to come into it's own.

Lon Chaney - he calls the Godfather of Horror.

Spoke to Caarla Laemmle (niece of Universal Pictures founder Carl Laemmle), a sprightly centurian!

Chaney used a life mask to help with his own makeup, and aid it's conception.

Carl Laemmle wanted to do a Dracula pic, but the Great Depression hit in 1925. However, he found a more cost-effective way to film.

Dracula (1931) was the first modern horror picture with sound. Starred Bela Lugosi.

Gatiss says great as it was, it didn't have that Gothic sensibility.

Owing to 'creative differences' Lergosi departed from the production of the next movie...

The English Director James Whale was brought in for Frankenstein (1931). It was Boris Karloff's 81st movie! Gatiss makes reference to the make-up artist (Jack Pierce), but says that Karloff in the title role was so much more than 'a brilliant piece of makeup'. Physically looking different makes you different - and Karloff understood that acutely from personal experience growing up... The movie allegedly contained the first controversial scene in the killing of a child. With it's heavy content, the movie stormed to box-office success.

Another hit followed in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931).

And also Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933) shot in Technicolour.

James Whale could be considered the First Horror Auteur, who pioneered 'camp'.

The Old Dark Horse (1932)

His films have aged well.

Whale invited back for a follow-up, on his terms, with the condition that he had complete creative control.

Bride of Frankenstein (1931) ensued.

Pretorius - camp.

Whale's greatest achievement, and was his last pic.

There was no censorship in the 1930s.

And cinema (horror in particular) reached more twisted and sadistic territory.

Mad Love (1935)

Island of Lost Souls (1933)

The Black Cat (1934)

And notorious to this day:

Freaks (1932)

Directed by Todd Browning, featured real people, not special effects...

Bombed at the box office...

After re-releasing Frankenstein and Dracula a Renaissance of sorts occurred.

Universal's Son of Frankenstein (1939)

Lost much of the camp.

Had a more swashbuckling approach.

The was made famous as Bambi!

One of the greatest casts ever!...

Lergosi tried to be taken advantage of, but co-stars supported his and fought for him.

Boris Karloff's last stab at Frankenstein.

1940s

Sequels were a commonplace favourite.

Cat People (1942) Distributed by RKO Radio Pictures Inc.

Followed Citizen Kane flop.

Released sensationalist movies with evocative titles first, storyline second, but managed to develop a psychological sophistication in the process.

The 'Lewton Bus' (the swimming pool, and walking down a shady street!)

John Carpenter not at all impressed with Luton!

Gatiss holds polite reserve, and obviously appreciates it!

The Body Snatcher (1945)

Comparing Boris Karloff to Bela Lergosi. The former had a long and successful career. The latter not so.

Bud Abott Lou Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948)

Invited for a British tour, for a Dracula revival in regional theatres. Unsuccessful, mocked, people and audiences had become a bit more sophisticated. Lergosi saw Dracula as his Hamlet. Didn't make the comeback he wanted. He was buried in his Dracula cape when he died 5 years later.

The Atomic Age hit in the 1950s, and Horror cinema became extinct for 2 decades thereafter.

Movies were all about scientists and soldiers, over the stake.

What others thought of the episode:

http://www.newstatesman.com/television/2010/10/gatiss-horror-lewton-history

The Pillars of the Earth: Ep. 2

A shockingly visceral and grisly opening to this latest episode. Definitely set the tone for how the rest of the story might play out: the good guys don't always win.

The plight of Shirling's progeny is played out a bit more, with a pro-feminist sensibility. A 'nun-come-outlaw-witch's' prediction for the incumbent monarch plays out. (With her obligatory half-naked 'shagging-scene'). A prior continues to prove his cunning and political powers to great effect, together with the aid of some rather flamboyant (bordering obscene) CGI sequences. With the greater powers-that-be conspiring to subjugate the 'humble' Prior and his troupe, together with their plans for building an ambitious Cathedral, there is some sense of justice and heroic triumph to balance the atrocity opening the episode. We're left on some sort of cliffhanger by the end.

The limitations of realising an epic novel to the (television) screen are felt a bit more in this particular episode - I felt anyway. With the constraints of Episode production time (a maximum of 54mins), you really get the sense that there have been some rather severe efforts to condense the material into the allotted screen time. The result is something that feels forced, has an unnatural sense of pacing, and a near-ridiculous melodramatic series of events by the end of the episode: like they had to fit in as much as possible, and a Director wanted to put in as much as possible for his one and only chance at the project.

Curiously though, despite this, I'm still highly intrigued as to how the next four parts of the story are going to play out. The grand design and epic aspirations of the production still make compelling viewing, though lacking in that expert finesse, an attention to the nuances and the niceties to really make this something. At the very least, it has encouraged me to read the book! Still looking forward to the next episode!

The Pillars of the Earth: Ep. 1

Should really be called: The Politics of the Church.

Set in England around the 12th Century, this production is a rather curious mix of Braveheart, Gladiator and Mad Men! Braveheart and Gladiator for the rather enthralling battle-sequences in all their bloody glory, together with the musical stylings (reminiscent of both); and Mad Men for the style of story-telling: a myriad of inter-woven mini-stories that are all connected in some way, at the same protracted pace.

My only criticism at this point has to be the explicit characterisations: you know the creepy-looking bad guys from the offset with their long dark greasy hair (a la Alan Rickman from Harry Potter) as well as the protagonist heroes (Rufus Sewell looking quite butched up as 'Tom Builder' whose trade just happens to be a... well, Builder!). Also of note is the obvious attempt to please the unconvinced with the (unnecessarily) gratuitous sex-scenes, and other moments of sexual insinuation. Not quite as bad as The Tudors (for which I stayed with for only a handful of episodes), but a little patronising for the viewer... I'm sure the novelisation is a touch more subtle and nuanced.

Who would have thought a story about the building of a Cathedral in the context of British Politics could be made to seem so entertaining and engaging! A Cain and Abel storyline, doomed love, forced love, the nature of family (the harmonious and the dysfunctional), and the seemingly overwhelming power of church and monarchy vs the simple morality (apparently) of the decent under-class...

Not a masterpiece, but engaging enough. I look forward to the next episode!

Film 2010 : Episode 1 - October 13th

With guest Danny Leigh - seems like a proper move buff!...

The Social Network

Both lavished praise on 'The Social Network' with West Wing writer Aaron Sorkin, and Director David Fincher. Unusual for how, according to Leigh, 'cinema is a lumbering beast with keeping up with events' - this movie does. Oscar nods abound, with interviews from the writer and the key members of the cast.

The London Film Festival

Debating what to call the troupe of other experts/enthusiasts:

• Chris Hewitt (him off Empire) with Darth Vader shoes, was at The London Film Festival. Anticipating '127 hrs' and 'Submarine'.
• Someone called Quirke (a more elitist film viewer) anticipating 'Bridge on the River Kwai', a newly restored print, and 'Howl'.
• A proper young dude (a blogger) anticipating 'Black Swan'.

Hewitt at the premiere of 'Never Let me Go', and speaking to the trio of protagonists Carey Mulligan, Kiera Knightly, and some other dude. It felt like he was interrupting a private social gathering, as they were all giggling uncontrollably, in mock jest at eachother. Felt sorry for Chris Hewitt who was trying to be serious, and was obviously not allowed into that inner circle of the joke being shared...

Leigh's most looking forward to 'Neds' - Anton Corben, and is his recommendation for the Festival.

Despicable Me

Leigh says he's smitten with the film, and was generally opposed to the comparisons with Pixar. Claudia found it a touch predictable but said she loved it. Were in mutual agreement about the film's finite nature, closing down the possibility of another franchise a la Shrek and Toy Story. People under 3.5ft will love it - according to the duo.

Charlie's Top 5 scenes to do with the Moon:

(The young blogger dude from before)

1. An American Werewolf in London
2. Enter the Dragon (Bruce Lee's apparently naff metaphor for the moon) - resonated with me and raised a chuckle!
3. AI: Artificial Intelligence (with the big fake moon chasing Law and Haley Joel)
4. The Truman Show (with Ed Harris being wistful in his sky-moon office)
5. Moulin Rouge (where the moon joins in singing with Kidman and McGreggor). Never noticed that before! Quite amusing!

Berated by Danny Leigh that the choices are made by an 8-year-old/12-year-old! Swiftly defended by Claudia professing her love for him.

Vampires Suck

Rolling Stone apparently gave it a four-word review "This film sucks more". Unfunny and offensive. There are more interesting things to do to pass time.

Over Your Cities, Grass will Grow

Claudia not really feeling it. Lacking dialogue and commentary. Leigh anticipated fisticuffs between the two, as he liked the film for it's engaging and immersive imagery.

A brief interview with Simon Pegg:

(with a massive Burke and Hare poster in the background)

Dream role?

Nic Cage's character in Raising Arizona

Guilty pleasure?

Rom-coms! A League of their Own in particular, viewed on a plane with Nick Frost. The moment when Hanks reveals death of a husband, said he found touching.

Fav films?

Dawn of the Dead (the Romero one)

Taxi Driver - a fantastic character study

Raising Arizona

Though the obvious one would be Star Wars!...

I have to admit:

Struggles with Gone with the Wind. The wife loves it, has got it on DVD. Sweeping, epic. Yeah, so what?... Ha ha!

The programme ended with a (supposedly exclusive) trailer for the upcoming Narnia movie. Looked horrible. A grotesque infatuation with CGI, a cartoon-like mash-up of Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings. Perhaps it's a bit premature to say, but it's definitely one I'm NOT going to see...

________________________________

Impressions of the new format:

You can tell that the programme's not secure or self-assured enough to have Winkleman completely on her own: she has to have a seemingly wide-spectrum of 'qualified' people to act as a supporting cast. Predictably, proper film buffs deride the format with some saying it's all over the place, and others, such as myself, am indifferent but rather welcome the change.

I really liked the show with Jonathan Ross, but did feel it was just what he thought, his opinion, an enthusiast, not an expert. Here, it's a messy blend of everything, and you can pick and choose what you like - or not. Overall, it's neither garishly offensive, or light-weight in content - and was happy enough to see something different. I also quite liked the banter between the snobby elitist movie people against the triers and the unsung workers (notably Chris Hewitt and that blogger dude). I look forward to the next episode!

This is England '86

There's no denying the stylistic quality and consistency of this four-parter, as a continuation of Shane Meadow's fine movie: This is England.

I found it thoroughly engaging and compelling. I loved the contextualisation of the drama for the more memorable events of the 80's (the Falklands War, the 1986 World Cup and Diego Maradonna's Hand of god goal), and the distinctively vibrant soundtrack that characterized the original movie. But there was something about it that just didn't sit right for me.

It wasn't the raw and visceral scenes of sexual abuse, or of the rather comical entrapment of one of the side characters by an older woman (a la The Graduate)... It was more of the contrivance of the story, like an episode of Friends (and I do like Friends, by the way!).

I'm not sure whether it's because I'm of the 'glass-half-empty' disposition, but I did find it a touch unbelievable that the rather amiable and care-free troupe central to the movie storyline were still together 3 years later... That they happened to come across Sean, via his one-time girlfriend (Smell), in the first episode was also an extended suspension of reality... And everything else just seemed to fit neatly in... It didn't feel natural, or organic to the narrative, which is perhaps what I found most disconcerting. I feel the need to reiterate that I did enjoy the series, it's just a minor niggle that I had.

The supposed 'villain' also literally crashes back into the picture at the end of the third act, whose redemption for past sins also feels forced, contrived, as well as fleeting to the point of indifference...

10 Recommended War Movies from Empire

From Empire's Flash feature on 'Becoming a War-Movie Expert in 10 films'!

Das Boot (1981)
When Eagles Dare (1968)
Waterloo (1970)
La Grande Illusion (1937)
Paths of Glory (1957)*
Platoon (1986)*
Army of Shadows (1969)
A Bridge too Far (1977)
Come and See (1985)
Saving Private Ryan (1998)*



*the only ones I've seen!...

World Cinema Awards 2010

Hosted by Jonathan Ross (sporting a goatee beard, looking a touch dishevelled) at the BFI Southbank - on BBC4.

Can't believe there were only two awards being presented! Felt quite over-elaborate, ostentatious, unwelcoming. The 'filler' sequences felt similarly so, but was intrigued nonetheless for the movies that were to be discussed.

Peter Bradshaw (I think it was, did a summary of the year's best).

Dogtooth
Draquila - Italy Trembles
Women without Men
Soi Cowboy
Katalin varga
The Illusionist
Metropolis (1927)
A Prophet
The White Ribbon
Let the Right One In
I am Love
Waltz with Bashir

The Jury:
Aamir Khan
Christopher Hampton
Sophie Fiennes
Bidisha


Didn't really like how they gave nearly the whole plot away for all the movies! 'Twas like an extension of Film 2010 with Jonathan Ross... The nominated movies were given this treatment before and after the 'World Cinema Achievement Award 2010'.

- A Prophet
- I am Love
- Let the Right one In

Then the presentation for the Achievement Award to Bernardo Bertolucci.
The Conformist
Last Tango in Paris
1900
The Last Emperor
The Sheltering Sky
The Dreamers

The remaining nominees:
- The White Ribbon
- Waltz with Bashir

Winner: The White Ribbon, by Michael Haneke.

Allegedly couldn't be there in person owing to 'Casting calls organised long before', so got one of his actresses to accept the award. Seems like a cool guy! Loved The Piano Teacher. Definitely have to check out more of his stuff!

screenrush.co.uk - something to check out?...

Ammending Blockbuster Online Rental Account...

To get better value for money, deleting most Blu-Rays and replacing them with ordinary DVDs:

Avatar
Up
Doubt
Cloverfield
Persepolis
Waltz with Bashir
I've Loved You So Long
Shooter
The White Ribbon
Harry Brown
Paranormal Activity
Jennifer's Body
Public Enemies
Moon
Blade Runner
Men Who Stare at Goats
The Road
Star Trek Next Generation Box Set
3:10 to Yuma (both versions)
Rescue Dawn
American Graffiti
Capitalism - A Love Story
Mesrine Parts 1+2
Che
Sex and the City
Star Trek
The Pursuit of Happyness
American Gangster
A Prophet
The Reader
The Queen
A Clockwork Orange
Barbarella
Boogie Nights
The Savages
Nil By Mouth
Highlander
Police Story
Sex Drive
Franklyn
Death Wish
Robin Hood

The Expendables (2010)

Saw yesterday morning with sis, after a long while!

Quite funny, for all the wrong reasons. A very narcissistic movie for Stallone, the central ex-80s action star, who's pairing himself with the Stath (Jason Statham) as his equal! If you can accept that initial concept for the main protagonists, you could then begin to accept this movie, warts and all of which there are many!

The moral of the story/main message? As long as the cause is saving a 'hot' Mexicana, you can justify mass genocide, and a total and blatant ignorance of what's going on in the world. And innocuously bombastic episodes of brutal and explicit violence.

For me, the film in it's entirety can be framed by five 'key scenes':

1. Mickey Rourke's crying scene. (Even worse than in Iron Man 2, light years away from The Wrestler, but funny all the same.)
2. Stath and Stallone using an animal welfare cargo ship to eviscerate an entire South American army!
3. The Godfather car chase scene culminating in Jet Li's fight with Dolph Lungren
4. The 6-min random bomb deployment scene! (So funny for it's pointlessness)
5. The in-your-face 'All vs All' fight scene at the end (using guns, knives, diamond-tipped machine-guns, and explosives), with the typical 'oil-barrel-in-water-exploding' to top it off!

It sort of makes me think: they probably started with this as a template, and added everything else around it for extra padding/insulation to inflate the running time (brief as it was)!

Commendable: this is an idea that will make heap loads of money. However it's almost disrespectful for all those concerned. This motivation ultimately compromises respect and artistic integrity. If this is supposed to be a throw-back movie evoking the spirit of the 80s action movie, it doesn't say much about what the main cast think in retrospect, or what they represent (if anything at all). This totally vindicates Jean Claude Van Damme's very public decision to turn down a role, following a personal call from Sly himself. Thought he was an arrogant tit at first, just a bit of fun... But any serious actor still wanting to be taken seriously in the movie-world would not have gone for this. And I sympathise. Stallone know's he's in the twilight of his career - the biceps can only bulge so far (like Rourke's belly) - and he intends to go out with a loud explosive atom bomb.

If the budget was as expendable as the collective acting, more effort on story and characterisation (over explosions, locations and set-pieces) would have been a more welcome outcome. Originality, inventiveness, and creativity (bar a few moments of insanity) this is not.

That the movie unites some of the major stars of that particular genre is reason enough to watch it. Like Jet Li's fight with Jackie Chan in 'The Forbidden Kingdom': poo film, but what a fight! I suspect that's the reason for most critic's compulsion (mine included) to commend the film beyond its numerous and various flaws and deficiencies. Nostalgic sympathy.

For what it lacks in expectation it tries to compensate with 'Sly' lines of dialogue, brief vignettes, excessive guns, violence and explosions. A notable example of the former include Schwarzeneggar's Terminator-esque entrance as a potential rival to Stallone (The Last Action Hero), and his reference to "My friend likes to play in the jungle" (Rambo). Stallone ripostes: "He wants to be President!" no doubt a cheeky jibe for the Governator's political aspirations.

Of particular attention are Dolph Lungren and Eric Roberts' characters. There feels like a genuine malevolence and maliciousness that adds to the obligatory 'villain' role. These characters are two of the focal assets of the movie, despite Stallone's attempts to trump everyone as main lead. This is in stark contrast to the General's dictator character ('An-ghell' off Dexter), a decortated Teddy Bear that no one really takes seriously.

The most annoying thing about this movie is that it really leaves you wanting more... I really wanted to see more of Jason Statham and Jet Li displaying their awesome fighting skills of movies past. (I was thankful for Cory Yuen's choreography for Jet Li - the Director of Stathams debut, The Transporter - a saving grace for the movie, when it occurs to me that Stallone and Statham just improvised themselves, on the spot their own fight scenes). You wanted to see more of Stallone's vulnerability from his first ever movie, Rocky. You wanted to see a more intimidating robotic automaton from Dolph Lungren (Universal Soldier, and Rocky IV). You wanted to see something more substantial from Randy Couture (essentially an accessory to the cast) showing off more about what he's famous for (Mixed Martial Arts) beyond someone who's flippantly and artificially affected with 'psychological issues'. And for that reason alone - for wanting more - you would anticipate and look forward to watching a sequel, and the numerous others after it no matter how bad they were!...

Perhaps the biggest disappointment of them all was the lack of the main advertising theme tune! (But that's a minor quibble!)

Let the Right One In (2008)

Swedish: Låt den rätte komma in

An anti fairy-tale (for grown-ups not averse to gratuitous blood). It's also the anti-Twilight in my view! The focus on child protagonists symbolise a profound innocence amidst abject horror and atrocity. Subverting expectation at almost every turn, deeply moving, and powerful in it's minimalism. Loved it, and felt like I could identify with it.

Venus (2006)

Any movie that makes you 'think' and 'feel' is a good one in my view, and worthy of seeing. It's a bonus if it's entertaining, and if it manages to engage you, as well as maintain your interest.

To that extent of thinking and feeling, I really liked Venus.

If you can get past the seeming lechery, and the rather inappropriate/taboo subject matter - this really is a movie that tries to engage and explore something very valid and meaningful. Perhaps you wouldn't have expected anything less from Film4, which always seems to aspire for something edgy, contemporary and powerful (Trainspotting, The Last King of Scotland). Venus is no different.

Jean-Luc Godard's 'Cinema is Truth' echoes omnipresent for me whilst watching this: How does one cope with old age?... What does one do about lust, and desire in advanced years. Is it wholly wrong to 'want' that which seems out of reach?

To have gone for something full-on and explicit would have been profoundly distasteful. The Direction is more subtle, not shy about adressing the issue (with it's rather brash and abrupt dialogue delivered by old codgers!), but with a necessary reserve that's both comedic (at first), and tragic at the same time.

There's an air of sophistication about the movie that is persistently dismantled by Jodie Whitaker's presence - a certain balance that feels just about right. Found her initially quite annoying, with a rather fabricated exaggeration of the teenage chav/townie... But we become more sympathetic towards her, as she becomes more humbled throughout the movie...

Perhaps distinct from the male protagonist in 'Lolita', Peter O Toole plays a rather endearing and sympathetic character, and we, as an audience, feel a most definite affinity for him by the end of the movie.

Love the art/imagery of the movie too - that seems very deliberate, and not at all overly contrived. The closing scenes for Peter O Toole I found particularly powerful in a subtle way: showing someone who was a sensual and sexual being to the end.

I wonder if death would really have such a profound effect on me. I have known people who have died, but never anyone close, or someone who I was personally close to. What legacy would be left, what legacy would I leave behind?... Yeah, i know, pretty damn depressing - but something that I thought about during and following the movie. Powerful stuff indeed.

Other notes to add:
- Romantic love being all-too-consuming.
- The Christian notion of forgiveness
- Punishment for sin?...

Rating: 8/10

Buffalo '66 (1998)

An raw expressionistic fantasy set in grim, real-world, post-industrial suburbia (Buffalo). Has an early 90's minimilism, with a small cluster of ingeniously surreal moments. The club scene alone, makes the movie worthy of a viewing.

A depiction of Depression, Familial disillusionment, Isolation and Revenge comprise the elements of the movie's formuala. Christrina Ricci's love interest role, helps to bring a softness and innocence to the movie in spite of her rather illogical and baffling motivations.

Vincent Callo commands our sympathy, discovering bitter-sweet solace from rage-fuelled violence, even though a touch late. We overlook, for a moment, the narcicissm and the egotism of the Director/Writer/Music Credit, for something that boasts moments of originality and achingly pure heart - a disconcertingly welcome addition to the Indie genre.

Bronson (2008)

Not the most enjoyable film. A difficult watch. But I liked it.

I like the way it depicts a man who's struggling to find a place in the world, but doesn't even know it. He struggles to cope with life in the real world (irrational bouts of extreme violence, not knowing the niceties of relationships and his standing in them) and confused about his motivations (if any) in prison.

The mental asylum is Bronson's most tangible prison: the ability to 'feel', 'do', even to 'think' is denied him, drugged beyond all sensation. Beyond that, rampant recklessness and chaos is his true freedom, in whatever capacity available to him. The imagery of babies, and being naked is a pertinent one: he's just being himself, purely, unashamedly, and ironically, quite innocently... The metaphor of his life being like a stand-up comedy act is also apt. Comedy and tragedy are often not too far away from eachother... And it seems he enjoyed a notorious celebrity status amongst the UK press, much to their salacious entertainent.

Like Kubrick's Clockwork Orange, it questions the role of State, and it criticises the more established hierarchies of 70s Britain (and to a certain extent today). What do you do with someone who is prone to violence and refuses to comply, over a period of 26 years? Being set free was a shocking response, considering his apparent cost to the taxpayer... What would you do?

Reminds me of a line in Robert Rodriguez's 'Sin City': "He was just born in the wrong century. Would have been at home on the battlefield, wielding a battle-axe in war" - or words to that effect.

An astonishingly brave and courageous performance from Tom Hardy (a personal favourite actor of mine). Seems to have undergone a transformation akin to Christian Bale in The Machinist - only the other way...

The Karate Kid (2010)

A colourful, fad-embellished money-spinner that forces an epic scope on a small and intimate story. The copy-cat imitation still entertains with it's 'kung-fu' spectacle and risible cheese factor! Doesn't best original - lacking heart and authenticity - but infuses a new sense of cool for kung-fu fighting. Rating: 3.5/5

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

Just finished watching now. What the fuck? A real testing of patience...
I SO didn't get it.

Random, I think I know off the top of my head that Geoffrey Unsworth was the photogapher?... Someone definitely connected to Superman (1978). I think perhaps that movie was in tribute to him.

It seemed quite promising, the beginning and middle... But the ending was totally lost on me. I frankly found it grating and irritating. Trying to work it out - for myself... A sort of pallindromic effect?... I'm pretty sure all the answers are in the minimal dialogue.

So the opening. The incredibly prolonged orchestral dissonance kept me wondering if my television was broken or something... Must have been at minimum five minutes worth of blackness and sonic irritation. Rather it was a prelude for The Dawn of Man sequence. Also Spoke Zarathustra precedes. And there's imagery of Moons and planets in line. Cool. Thought I'd lost it right from the start, but following, I think... The ape-like creatures and their daily living. Threatened by a tribal group of similar ape-like creatures for the waterplace. They're intimidated, and forced to leave. They're near death. They share a communal affinity for eachother. In their hibernation, they randomly come across a huge black 'monolith'. They touch it, and are highly intrigued by it, it drives them crazy.

Not long afterwards, one of the ape-like beings discovers the use of a weapon using the remains of another. He and his tribe go back to claim the the water-spot, brutally beating down the singular opposition. It scares the rest of the previously occupying group away. The agressive group no doubt survive for a long time, and perhaps marks that next step in evolution.

The focus on the bone swiftly makes the comparison to a Spaceship in outerspace. The innovation of a bone being used as a weapon is no doubt connected with the imagery of the 'wheel'-like spaceship. A smaller ship is attempting to go into the wheel. This is done using Strauss' Blue Danube. It feels quite joyous and celebratory, almost playful.

Some American dude comes on board. He's a highly respected official. Speaks to his daughter via 'telephone', kinda like the iPhone - lots of Mac imagery!... He's not able to attend his daughter's birthday, as he's away on business. American proceeds to talk to an English Doctor and his crew. They suspect that there has been some sort of outbreak - a rumour, that the American says he is 'not a liberty to discuss'.

Following this meeting, he adresses a panel of officials. The rumour is actually a coverup. Something mysterious on the moon. Can't remember whether at this point they had revealed that it was the first sign of intelligent life. They fly to discover it/analyse it. The imagery is reminiscent of the beginning of the movie, with the ape-like creatures. A voyage of discovery... Whilst on the ground, they too discover the 'monolith'. Upon touching it, people being surrounded by it, a high-shrieking sonic blast is inflicted upon them...

Fast-forward 18 months on a Space Mission to Jupiter.
Khatachurians Gayena Suite playing....
It's rather cold, distant, disconcerting, sad and uncomfortable.
The atmosphere is more thought-provoking than celebratory.

We're introduced to two crew members, we realise three of the members of the initial team are also on-board but in hibernation, and we're also introduced to the HAL 9000 computer. A super-computer that can emulate, or rather, has emotions. This computer is said to have never ever made a mistake. It is infallible. Of significance is the idea of keeping fit, around a wheel, making fighting-like movements near chairs that look like the apes from the beginning. All crew members enjoy a harmony, a sense of purpose together. Until the computer reveals that there is an error with one of the peropheral devices on the ship. When one of the crew goes to check it, he discovers that there is nothing wrong with it. When conferring with home, they discover that it's possbible that HAL was wrong. The two members of the crew confer stealthily that if the device proves to be working properly, that there's nothing wrong with it, they will disconnect HAL. But unbeknown to them, HAL has been lip-reading their conversation. Knowing that the next engagement with the device temporarily distorts communication from home, HAL deliberately aborts one of the crew members into open space, and kills the three other scientists who were in hibernation.

The other member tries to chase after him, successfully. But HAL refuses to let him back in. The remaining crew member has to let go of his friend/co-worker (leave for dead in space) in order to break back into the ship. He does so, and proceeds to switch HAL off. HAL explains that he couldn't let the humans compromise his mission... Is pleading desperately not to be switched off. It is at that point that we realise that on the surface of the moon, 18 months earlier, a signal was emitted direct to Jupiter. It is revealed whilst an automatic video recording is played upon realising the ship is on entry towards Jupiter.

Queue super-annoying music, with colouful montage, like the visual of someone on speed or something. Vaguely recall the moon and planets in sequence. Some Big Bang imagery. It even looked like a pregnant woman at some point. The monolith flying in space. The astronaut growing old. In a white room. Suddenly sees himself an old man eating a meal with his back turned. Then turning again, an old man on his death-bed, pointing at the monolith. Then a big gigantic alien baby in space. Honestly, that's how it was! Only just a little more prolonged. In connection with the opening, I can only surmise that this singular astronaut has discovered a new way to live life, a re-birth of sorts.

A new type of evolution. Perhaps that was what the computer knew, and it was battling the humans for that new evolutionary way of living: the next stage. Yeah, so that's what the movie was about. Human endeavour, and evolution! Given that, I think it was pretty cool, artistic, and thought-provoking. The visuals really are of a timeless on a par with Alien. Can't believe this movie was made in 1968! Incredible, really! Gonna read what a few other people thought about it....

Toy Story 3 (2010)

A hugely rewarding and entertaining finale, with that extra emotional injection to precipitate the waterworks!

What struck me most about this instalment is a very tangible sense that it really didn't seem like a movie for the kids. Rather a tribute and a parting message to the generation that grew up with it: a 'Great Escape' movie with elements of horror and a genuinely evil malevolence that would rival a Tim Burton movie.

With a structure pretty much consistent and in place for the first two movies (toys conveniently misplaced from home, and heroically try to find their way back), this third act doesn't veer too far from that formula. It's not ground-breaking, and it's not supposed to be (much like the quirky, near-ambivalent short accompanying the feature). It's a movie designed to fill in the few gaps left, and polish the product to it's best condition, perhaps to be placed in that metaphorical museum (as hinted at in the second movie) amongst Pixar's all time Hall of Fame works.

Also in common with that second instalment is the rather wonderfully self-indulgent, over-the-top introduction that seems to nod, ear-mark, and tick all the genres it could possibly fit in: Science FIction, the Western, et al. Whist it was a bit much at first, this conflation of all things and themes in such a short space helps to accentuate the drama of the aftermath. I also love the little nods towards cinema elsewhere throughout the movie, notably: Forest Gump (the hat-flying), Mission Impossible (a sky drop centimetres from falling flat on your face), Jurassic Park, Shawshank Redemption (the jail scenes), and Star Wars (the trash scenes). But behind every formulaic convenience there are some riveting turns and surprises that command your attention, and continues to engage.

Stand-out characters for me have to be Ken and Buzz! Whilst Woody and Buzz share near equal screen time and importance for the narrative, it's Buzz that really steals the show!... The most shockingly discomforting characters that stood out for me have to be 'Big Baby', and the 'Monkey' (perhaps off Family Guy and Powerpuff Girls) whom I found to be quite distrubing, and in itself would possibly merit a higher certificate rating!...

The franchise is rounded off quite neatly, in a wholly satisfying way, though not altogether original. Shockingly sad, and scary at times. The heart-strings are pulled and tugged indeed, but in just the right measure for it to be digestible. Certainly the strongest emotional gravitas of the three, Toy Story 3 has a rewarding and satisfying sense of finality, with neat twists and turns along the way ( a touch heavy at times) that embellish the inherent formulaic structure of the franchise - the only reason for a half star less... Otherwise a rather triumphant swansong whose characters will be sorely missed!

Rating: 4.5/5

Inception (2010)

Certainly one of the most challenging works of cinema in a while dealing with the idea of 'consciousness' and dreaming, a few steps further than 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'. How the fuck does someone come up with something like this! Thought it was amazing, and it works on so many levels. Literally.

Intensely cerebral, science fiction-y, that makes you seriously question reality in a way that the Matrix hinted at, but Inception hits home with it's 'real-worldliness' aesthetic: there's no mythic apocalyptic creatures here, no Zion-like dystopian future - just Michael Caine, Tom Berenger, and Pete Postlewaithe keepin' it real.

Not sure whether it was because I was wearing both contacts on today (a rarity, as I usually wear just the one to economise), but walking out the cinema seriously made me question what was around me! Hadn't felt like that since watching Nightmare on Elm Street as a 9 -year-old, and was a little scared of walking up and down stairs for fear of being sucked into them)...

So many filmic references, or at least open and inviting comparison. Some that come to mind:
- Shutter Island (particularly DiCaprio's central predicament throughout the movie)
- The Matrix (the first)
- Titanic (the end scenes in particular, as well as the sheer grandiosity of the vision)
- The Prestige (the very end)
- The Bond and Bourne movies (in terms of action, intrigue, mystery, and espionage), particularly in Quantum of Solace with the chase scene starting with Tom Hardy and DiCaprio.

Love how there seems to be a film reference for each main character actor in the movie! With Ken Wantanabe, it's perhaps his association with The Last Samurai, or even as Ra's Al Ghul in Batman Begins. With Marion Cotillard, for sure the use of 'Je ne regrette rien' is an obvious nod to La Vie en Rose. With Tom Hardy, he's the manly cheeky chappy from 'Bronson' even 'Scenes of a Sexual Nature'. With DiCaprio, there's Titanic and Shutter Island. Jospeh Gordon Hewitt retains that puppy romantic sensibility albeit in a more subtle way, but with an air of beefed up manliness that would shoot up and choke-hold all his previous roles to date! Ellen Page - a little Juno-esque, who seems precociously intelligent, insightful, curious, adaptable in youth. The list goes on...

There's been talk of 'fourth time lucky' for DiCaprio for the Oscar stakes. I personally wouldn't go as far to say so. It's a great performance, but one that's a little one-note (as the demands of the character need be) for Oscar. I couldn't help thinking about the politics of the situation, and something a little fishy going on... He started out around the same time as Mark Whalberg and Johnny Depp, (The Basketball Diaries, and What's Eating Gilbert Grape), had reached Box Office heights with Kate Winslett in Titanic, yet he's the one that seems to be the most shining star - a protege of Scorsese in much the style as De Niro, a Speilberg collaborator (Catch me if you Can) and even working with Clint Eastwood next on 'Hoover'.

Enough of my DiCaprio conspiracy theory! Back to Inception.

Wouldn't recommend to everyone though. The packed to sold-out audience I was in attendance with responded with about four people applauding, majority boos, and instant walk-outs upon End Credits (Idiots, for the latter two). But hey, it was a Saturday night at Cineworld, not a special screening at the BFI - what do you expect? Definitely, I'm a film/movie snob. I'm one of those people that feels compelled to stay till the end of the credits (It's part of the movie experience!), and get genuinely angered when the lights go up prematurely, and the staff pressure you or force you out of the cinema (by their sheer presence peering in with brooms and bin bags on standby) so they can clean up quicker...

Nolan's a genius for the timing of this movie - something that needed to be made in my view. Had it been the first thing he had ever done, he might not have had a further career owing to an unsure box office reception. Had it been of his later career, people might have thought he might have lost it and gone all Kubickian. But off the success of The Dark Knight, and sandwiched before Batman 3 - this is certainly an audacious move, a risky and challenging venture that's part of a secure and intact career. For sure, he's no formulaic Apatow. Damn all those (the audience I was in attendance with) who expected him to be so, and perhaps wanted to see some sort of Dark Knight or something... I hope Nolan continues to stick with cinema that's constantly breaking new ground, is challenging, engaging, immersive and absorbing, and hugely entertaining.

Awesome! Rating: 5/5

Curious to check out what other people thought!...