Director - George A. Romero

Writer - Goerge A. Romero

Starring - Michelle Morgan, Josua Close, Shawn Roberts, Amy Ciupak Lalonde, Philip Roccio

Review:

As inventive and original as the premise for this newest slice of cinematic zombie life might have seemed a few years ago, it has arrived onto our screens a little too late. As a result George A. Romero’s Diary of the Dead, with the exception of a few decent scares and an admirable humanistic message behind it, doesn’t really work the way I imagine it was supposed to.

While filming their own low-budget horror film in the woods, a group of students get word of a very large dose of terror sweeping the country in the form of the dead coming back to life and attacking the living. The group immediately try to make their way home but obviously not all goes to plan.

Almost 40 years and three more instalments in the Dead series since Night of the Living Dead, legendary filmmaker George A. Romero adds a fifth instalment to the much loved horror franchise. This time around the concept of the dead returning back to life has been given a twist; it’s done from the perspective of a group of student’s video cameras and the aim is to show everything exactly from that perspective only. The trouble is the film doesn’t always stick to this idea completely and as a result this undermines its premise and the film as a whole.  Admittedly the film is most effective when attacks of the zombies are shown handicam style, reflecting the frantic nature of what it would actually be like for that situation to arise in real life. But it’s the lack of commitment to the premise and the question of, “why would they still be filming this and not running for their lives?” that keeps the film from staying truly believable and effective throughout.

As I have said the concept of showing events within a film from a video camera was an interesting one when it was created ten years ago with The Blair Witch Project and even when it was revitalized not long ago with the highly enjoyable Cloverfield. Diary of the Dead’s late arrival means the concept is outdated and thus it’s emphasise on that concept being special comes off as nothing of the sort and instead left me, for one, annoyed by an hour in and just wishing I could watch everything in the regular way. That’s not to say that they don’t have some neat tricks up their sleeves. There are a few moments of genuinely effective scares, most notably the opening few minutes where victims of a shootout come back to life on a hospital gurney and bite the aiding paramedics, but the problem is there just isn’t enough of them. So completely scary the film is not, and it doesn’t help that there is a number of, let’s just say, questionable performances from the cast to catch the eye of anyone paying closer attention than just wanting some jump scares.

The characters we see throughout the film are pretty much all annoyingly clichéd. From the sure-to-be-victim blonde hottie to the drunken know-it-all professor, the main protagonists of the film aren’t exactly original but this is nicely counterbalanced, something probably not on purpose, by a host of strange minor characters that inspire a few laughs from the audience. Most notably a deaf, amish and conveniently helpful old man and a group of black, gang-like men with heavy artillery and much needed supplies. It was strange to me that there would be such clichéd characters on the forefront and yet such original and interesting characters taking the back, like I said probably an accident on Romero’s part.

So although there are problems-a-plenty in Diary of the Dead, the biggest of which is that the concept is now thoroughly outdated, the film fan in me was pleased to see the classic, slow-moving zombies return to the big-screen. This may be a work of a director far past his filmmaking prime but for fans of him and this style of movie, this latest serving of zombie pie should hold something to enjoy. But for the rest of you I would probably give this one a miss.

Director - Roger Donaldson

Writer - Dick Clement, Ian La Frenais

Starring - Jason Statham, Saffron Burrows, Stephen Campbell Moore, Daniel Mays, James Faulkner

Review:

British crime movies are hard to come by in a movie world overtaken by Americans in this particularly genre. Either the money and scope isn’t as grand over here or home grown British filmmakers have just fled to the States to make their movies. So it’s nice to see a good old-fashioned crime caper from this side of the pond even if it isn’t what it could have been. But even so it’s still nice to see a change in scenery every once in a while.

After a friend from his past comes to him with the proposition of robbing a bank, Terry (Statham) thinks it over, agrees and then recruits his friends to be part of the team. Their mission is to steal the contents of security deposit boxes but once they do the team find more than they expected to.

There may not be much new about The Bank Job, a pretty much by the book crime caper with the only difference from regular movies of this type being that it’s set in the close-knit streets of London instead of a larger, grander city in the United States. At least on the surface this provides for a pleasing change of location to the usual kind we are used to, so it as something going for it right off the bat.

So originality evidently isn’t the key to The Bank Job’s more positive attributes but sometimes if the formula’s right then a movie is free to use it and that’s exactly what this one does. It tells the regular storyline of a group of at-first reluctant but soon eager semi-criminals and villains who plan to rob a bank but hidden agendas are thrown into the mix that will unravel as the movie goes on. And although there is a couple of side storylines that add some extra layers onto cinematic cake, in and of themselves they are still the sort of stuff we have seen plenty of times in plenty of other movies.

When it comes to acting the film is a mixed bag. Statham is his usual cheeky and watchable self, effortlessly playing the type of character he’s used to in the type of movie he’s even more used to. He can play this kind of role in his sleep but that doesn’t stop him from being the likeable leading man for cinema goers alike.

Supporting him is a few British faces that you will recognize from somewhere or other in various other movies and TV shows. Daniel Mays, recently seen in a refreshing role in last year’s Atonement, adds one-liners and a general cheeky manner to comfortably accompany Statham’s leading man. And other such folk at James Faulkner, playing probably one of the most clichéd characters of the film, and Stephen Campbell Moore, who’s similar to Mays’ character, provide support and a supposed backbone to the film. But it’s the addition of Saffron Burrows that really had me begging for a different choice of casting. Her character is clichéd and 2D in almost every way, and Burrows herself is both unconvincing and wooden as ever. So not the perfect choice of cast but fortunately Statham and others provide a positive balance to Burrows’ decisively negative addition.

Probably The Bank Job’s biggest downfall is its uneven style and pace. It starts off as an intriguing thriller, in the vain of such films as The Italian Job remake and the Ocean’s series, about criminals taking a once in a lifetime opportunity. It then quickly changes in a dark gangster film when two men are sent to collect money that Statham’s character allegedly owes. The tone changes back to lighter, Snatch-like comedic crime film as we see the robbery unfold then it changes to an almost soap opera/sitcom style film when Statham deals with his wife, kids and how his past is affecting present day situations. So needless to say the film is awkwardly and at times annoyingly uneven as far as what it’s intending to be. It strives to be a few kinds of films in one, something which only extremely gifted filmmakers can pull off well, when it should have just tried to be one. Something tells me it would have been a hell of a lot more successful.

What ultimately won me over about The Bank Job was just the refreshing difference in setting and faces that we are used to seeing in movies like this. Statham is, as always, a very likeable and entertaining leading man even if his role here isn’t exactly outwith his comfort zone. It may not come close to rivalling some of America’s equivalents but The Bank Job has enough there to be a good, old-fashioned entertaining crime caper.

Director - Kent Alterman

Writer - Scot Armstrong

Starring - Will Ferrell, Woody Harrelson, Andre Benjamin, Maura Tierney, Andrew Daley, Andy Richter

Review:

Even though I don’t find every one of his comedic efforts funny I still would say I am a Will Ferrell fan, that is until recently. His usual routines used to work on me almost every time but with such films as Talladega Nights and Blades of Glory his schtick has wore thing with me. His latest, Semi-Pro, is at least semi-watchable but far from hilarious.

Jackie Moon (Ferrell), the own-coach-player of the Flint Michigan Tropics basketball team, rallies his teammates to make it into the NBA.

Maybe it’s just me and like I said Ferrell just doesn’t work with me any more but from where I was sitting Semi-Pro just isn’t all that funny. There are a few moments here and there, including a laugh-out-loud funny scene where his character fights at bear, but for the most part it just misfires at almost every turn. The ingredients are all there for a good comedy; a usually funny cast, some great opportunities to be outrageous in the name of comedy and a 70’s setting to have all sorts of reference gags for anyone who knows and/or remembers that time period. And all throughout there is a distinct inclusion of attempts to do this. But for some reason almost every intended joke misses not only the bull’s-eye but a lot of the time even just the target itself.

The cast of the film are all faces you will recognize from not only the world of comedy but outwith that as well. From the comedic world we obviously have Ferrell, who does his usual routines that fail to get much laughs because we have simply seen it all before. Will Arnett, of Arrested Development makes an appearance as one of the game commentators, whose character is one of the funniest parts of the movie. And there are a few Saturday Night Live stars such as Andrew Daly and Matt Walsh who throw their hats into the ring. Like Ferrell, as far as I can tell, all these guys do their usual thing resulting in yet another sense of the audience just getting sick of it. A couple of usually non-comedic actors try their hand at it here, most notably Andrew Benjamin and Woody Harrelsen. Benjamin shows promise that he could become a regular comedy actor in his next few movies, even though I wasn’t totally impressed by his routine here. Dramatic acting hasn’t exactly gotten him far so who knows comedy might just be where his talents lie.

Harrelsen is probably the high point of this film, virtually upstaging Ferrell. He has popped up here and there in slightly comedic roles but if I’m not mistaken this is his first attempt at a full on comedy role. And I have to say I was impressed with him here. I wouldn’t have believed a few years ago that I would ever say this but the reason to see a movie starring Will Ferrell isn’t Ferrell himself but actually it’s Woody Harrelsen. He holds his own in what is the funniest character of the movie, despite him being given considerably less screen time than some of the other, more comedy experienced actors.

Another positive aspect of the film is the look of it and more specifically the whole 70’s setting. It doesn’t quite draw the laughs by paying homage or making fun of the era that I was hoping but they pretty much nailed the look, feel and costumes of the 1970’s. Although that’s not the reason you should want to see a sporting comedy but in this case it’s one of the better things about it.

The differences between Semi-Pro and Ferrell’s other, much funnier work doesn’t just stop at the monumental decrease in laughs but also in its characters, specifically the main character of Jackie Moon, played by Ferrell himself. Some of his other characters like Old School’s Frank Ricard, Elf’s Buddy and especially Ron ‘Anchorman’ Burgundy are really memorable, quotable and funny even outwith the movies they are part of. Semi-Pro’s Jackie Moon, although a trademark kind of character for Ferrell, is neither overly funny nor memorable in any way. Unlike Ron Burgundy he will most likely be forgotten in the next few months, even weeks perhaps, and only looked backed on by die hard Will Ferrell fans.

So Semi-Pro falls severely short of the standard of comedy it so could have been. Ferrell does his usual, now boring comedic routine and the rest of the cast pretty much follow suit. Most of the jokes and sight gags misfire almost completely, with the exception of a couple of laugh-out-loud funny scenes, leaving Semi-Pro a big comedic disappointment.

Director - Sylvester Stallone

Writer - Sylvester Stallone, Art Montersatelli

Starring - Sylvester Stallone, Julie Benz, Matthew Marsden, Graham McTavish, Reynaldo Gallegos

Review:

Having taken another swing at things (pun intended) with Rocky Balboa, Sylvester Stallone has decided to take another and presumably last go at reviving another iconic character from yester-year; this time around bringing Mr John. J. Rambo. Where Rocky Balboa managed to both respect the character and have enough there to draw in fresh audiences, the latest instalment in the Rambo series has some fantastic action but doesn’t quite have what Balboa had to make it special.

In Thailand, John Rambo joins a group of mercenaries sent into war-ridden Burma to rescue a group of Christian aid-workers who have been kidnapped by the ruthless local infantry unit.

What is expected when going into see a film like Rambo? It’s certainly not Shakespearian dialogue, fantastic, Oscar worthy performances or even a great storyline. What you do expect, however, is some fantastic action sequences, a great pace possibly and just an overall fun time at the movies. And although it does deliver the latter eventually, it takes a long and almost painfully bad time to get there.

The dialogue is perhaps the films prime downfall. Like I said I am not expecting it to be poetically meaningful, Oscar worthy stuff but I do expect it to at least be passable and plausible. The dialogue here, co-written by director and star Stallone, is really bad for the most part, eye-rolling a fair amount of the time and a few times just utterly atrocious. I can’t quite get my head around the fact that Mr Stallone, and co-writer Monterastelli, sat down and actually thought that some of this dialogue would be worthy of using in a movie. This is also the main culprit in the low quality (to say the least) of the first hour so. Around the hour mark I don’t think I had much hope in me that the film would get any better. It’s been really bad so far, it can’t get any better, right? Wrong.

Luckily the last half hour of the film kicks some major ass. It has some of the most mind-blowing explosions and creative ways of killing the bad guys that I have seen in recent years. In true Rambo style the body count is easily 100+ throughout the movie, and it’s not like the audience thinks that’s a terrible thing, in the eyes of an action fan; the more kills the better. And that’s pretty much the mentality the film has for the last section, any and every bad guy gets their guts spilled, bodies ridden with bullets or their heads blown off (and in most cases all three). The movie certainly plays its card right in terms of action. There are movies where the killing is supposed to be deep and meaningful, where everything has to have a point but there are some movies, such as Rambo, in which the movie fan in all of us just wants to see the bad guys get their due and the latest instalment in this series delivers that.

Now in the first, horrible section of the film there isn’t a complete lack of action (if you can call the following “action”), as there are scenes of the bad guys storming a village, murdering, raping and causing havoc amongst the villagers. I could accept that, as lets face it many-an-action-film have used this tactic to gain justification from the audience, but it’s the graphic nature that Rambo has that I hold against it.  We see women raped, people blown apart and even children being thrown into fires. I am not exaggerating when I say that; we do see these things in pretty much full detail and I just thought it was way too much. I realize their intention of doing this, as like I said it is following in the footsteps of other action movies in trying to justify the bad guys getting their due, but I just don’t think they should have shown it in such a graphic way is all.

There’s not much else to say about Rambo; the first hour is horrible in pretty much everyway, terrible dialogue, paper thin storyline, two dimensional clichéd characters, and some wholly unnecessary graphic scenes of violence towards innocent people. But the film is balanced by some mind-blowing action sequences and machismo in the last half hour. Luckily it’s just enough to make Rambo worthwhile, even if it isn’t anything to write home about.

Director - Michel Gondry

Writer - Michel Gondry

Starring - Jack Black, Mos Def, Danny Glover, Mia Farrow, Melonie Diaz

Review:

For anyone who knows me and my movie tastes you will know what I am about to say relating to this film and for any of you who don’t; I am a huge fan of Michel Gondry. For Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind alone he sits firmly in my list of favourite directors. Now he brings us a slice of his mind in the form of Be Kind Rewind, an endearing and well intentioned comedy but one that ultimately falls very short of the usual quality of Mr Gondry’s work.

A man, who accidentally becomes magnetized after attempting to sabotage a local power plant, unintentionally erases all the tapes in his friend’s video store. In order to satisfy the customers of the store, the pair decides to shoot their own version of the films which include Ghostbusters, Robocop and The Lion King.

It may be a bit unfair for me to compare Gondry’s latest offering with his masterpiece Eternal Sunshine, or to compare the work of any director to each other. But it’s something when a director has released something in their past career of such high quality it’s inevitable that comparison is going to take place. It’s not that Be Kind Rewind just pales in comparison to Eternal Sunshine, it’s just on it’s own it’s not the greatest of movies. It has too many problems along its overly long 101 minute runtime for me too label it anything higher than ‘pretty good’.

On the positive side of things, firstly Jack Black and Mos Def are very fun and watchable and work surprisingly well together. I never would have thought, just by thinking of the two actors, that they would even end up in a movie together never mind the dynamic between the two actually working. Def plays the straighter, more focused of the two, almost like the side of writer/director Gondry’s brain that tells him he needs some sort of straight-and-narrow mentality for general audiences to grasp it (something which his last film The Science of Sleep definitely did not have). Black, however, is the counterbalance to this side of Gondry’s brain and is the representation of the ambition, the willingness and the creativity that he so deeply harbours and loves to express in any and every which way he can. There is a fair amount of this attitude present in Be Kind Rewind, particularly in the creativity of the scenes involving the characters remaking the famous movies. No movie is safe from Be Kind Rewind and Michel Gondry; everything from Ghostbusters to The Lion King, Robocop to Rush Hour 2 make an appearance. Even such unlikely candidates as Driving Miss Daisy and 2001: A Space Odyssey get “sweded” (the name the film gives to the films that get ‘remade’). These are the scenes in which the film is most enjoyable and also where the most ingenuity and creativity is stored. It’s amazing, on a technical level, how they remake the movies within the film, using everything from Christmas tinsel as the Ghostbusters equipment to a rotating cardboard box for the spaceship in 2001. I only wish that the movie had stuck with this idea virtually from beginning to end and not let itself get bogged down in an unnecessary extra storyline.

The film would have been a thing to cherish in it’s entirety if they hadn’t thrown in extra storylines and plot threads that just bog everything down and get in the way of what I thought was the point of the film. It’s supposed to be about a couple of guys remaking classic movies because all the tapes get ruined, and to begin with that’s what it is about, but then they keep referencing (and ultimately give most attention to) a storyline about an old jazz singer who was born near the video store. It seemed as if they literally lifted a storyline from another movie and attempted to cram it into Be Kind Rewind, a movie which otherwise would have been revered for years to come.

As a result of this unnecessary extra storyline and the concentration it gets by the film’s end, it gets overly cheesy and sentimental. I understand this was an attempt to give the film an injection of extra heart for anyone looking for more than the film at first promised to be but in my personal opinion they went a few steps too far with that aspect.

I normally have no problem with a long-ish runtime of a movie. But with a movie like this I felt that the over 100 minute runtime was about 10-15 minutes too long, it easily could have been shaven down to around 90 minutes to make the film a lot tighter and more enjoyable. It’s not a major issue for the film, the biggest one having been already mentioned, but it was something that I did noticed.

Be Kind Rewind may have it’s fair share of problems; it’s loo long, it doesn’t deliver fully what it promised and there is one storyline too many going on at the same time but what it is is endearing, laugh out loud funny a lot of the time and the film as a whole has enough charm and originality for me to recommend. It’s not what I was hoping for but a film worth checking out.

Director - Craig Gillespie

Writer - Nancy Oliver

Starring - Ryan Gosling, Emily Mortimer, Paul Schneider, Kelli Garner, Patricia Clarkson, Nancy Beatty

Review:

I can’t quite get my head around Ryan Gosling ‘indie flick’ Lars and the Real Girl. It seems to be the type of quirky film I usually like, and yet everything feels either misjudged or that it’s all trying a bit too hard. I could have been something great, if it weren’t for the fact that it’s not.

Lars is an awkwardly shy young man living in a small town staying in the garage of his brother’s house. One day he finally finds a girl and brings her home to meet his brother and his sister-in-law. The only problem is she’s not real – she’s a sex doll that Lars has ordered from the internet. His sister-in-law feels sorry for him and wants to help him, his brother thinks he’s crazy but eventually they and the whole town goes along with his delusion, welcoming him and his new ‘friend’ in support.

Lars had the potential to be something I really could enjoy; it’s quirky (or at least attempts to be), it has a great lead performance, a band of supporting actors I enjoying seeing from time to time and just a general chance of being something interesting and even fun to watch. Unfortunately it’s virtually none of the above, instead being an awkward, uncomfortable, hopelessly unfunny disappointment.

The one big thing that the film has going for it, and this practically stops me from hating the it, is that it’s wholly original. I think I can pretty much safely say that there has never been a film before this about a lonely man who orders a sex doll from the internet and treats it as a real person. It’s an original idea with a lot of potential for some great laughs and endearing outcomes to the inevitable breakdowns along the way. But I felt at every turn that the film was just trying too hard to be something we haven’t seen before, the screenplay being the biggest culprit of this. It takes the unique idea and stretches it out to a length that outstayed its welcome long before the end credits. I am not sure where else they could have went with the premise but I didn’t like the direction they did.

Lars is supposed to be a character we at first find no relation to, maybe even thinking he’s a complete loser and nothing more, but then are supposed to warm to him and even feel sorry for him. And although towards the end there were a few flutters here and there of the latter emotions, for the most part I just found his character unlikeable, unrelatable and just plain creepy. That’s not knocking the performance by Gosling, as he is great in the role and he really shows just how good of an actor he is here. But it’s the character I had the problem with, not the actor.

Another semi-saving grace of the film was the supporting cast. Emily Mortimer plays his sister-in-law and I found her character one hundred times more likeable and relatable then the title character and her performance is one I could take on board. Patricia Clarkson makes an appearance as a psychologist and she brings a great sense of maturity to this otherwise almost infantile film. But my favourite supporting performance came from Paul Schneider (recently seen in The Assassination of Jesse James) as Lars’ sceptical brother. The reaction of him when he finds out about Lars’ new ‘girlfriend’ was most likely the funniest part of the movie for me. He is an actor I am relatively unfamiliar with but I will certainly keep an eye out for him in the future.

The film is labelled as a comedy/drama so I realize that the laugh-factor isn’t going to be as high as traditional, full-on comedies. But at every point in turn, when everyone else in the cinema was laughing like hyenas, I kept think, “Why are you all laughing? What’s funny here?” Judging by the fact that I was in the minority by not laughing hysterically it must just be personal taste on my part as everyone else seemed to find it hilarious. This leaves me to the conclusion that it’s probably me and not the film.

For me this film at least isn’t completely without its merits; it’s completely original and the performances are really enjoyable. Unfortunately I found little else to like in Lars and the Real Girl, a film swamped by a sense of misjudgement, failed comedic moments and an air of trying way too hard for its own good. It’s a real shame as it really seemed like a real treat.

Director - Jon Poll

Writer - Gustin Nash

Starring - Anton Yelchin, Robert Downey Jr., Hope Davis, Kat Dennings, Ishan Dave, Megan Park

Review:

It’s no surprise that high school, teen comedies of all sorts resurface every now and then on the big-screen. They were popular in the 70’s and 80’s and for the most part worked in those eras. This kind of film, if done incorrectly, can be boresome, tiresome and radiate an air of unoriginality. Fortunately, however, Charlie Bartlett does enough to appear fresh and enjoyable while at the same time providing a dose of nostalgia to any fans of the genre.

Charlie is a smart, young, misbehaving 17 year old who has a habit, despite his good grades and attendance, of stirring up some kind of trouble and getting expelled from the private schools he attends. As a result his mother decides to send him to public school, to see if interacting with everyday teens will suit him more. Once there he soon becomes popular after becoming the school’s psychiatrist and provider of prescription drugs to the students.

The tone of the film is what stood out to me straight away. Peculiar and erratic it never quite settles for very long into a consistent pattern but rather veers from one tone and genre to the next. It goes from teen comedy, to drama, from message piece to a satire of genres. It never lets the viewer feel as though it’s in a set type of film and as a result the film is both better and worse off for it.

I don’t think it was intentional for the film to explicitly reference any teen comedy films of the past. But it’s inevitable that whatever you do within this type of sub-genre it is going to raise some comparison from viewers. Some may say Fast Times At Ridgemont High, other will say Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, but for me Bartlett most resembles the 1998 Wes Anderson film Rushmore. Both tell the story of a rich student inspiring other students of a high school and becoming the centre of attention. Apart from the quirkiness that is apparent in Rushmore but not here the two really resembled each other, at least to me. Not so much that it seemed like theft of ideas and style and you certainly couldn’t mistake one for the other but there was just enough there for me to draw comparisons.

The performances were overall a pleasure to watch. Yelchin is refreshing and a joy to witness as the title character, Dennings does a great job of keeping the fairly underdeveloped girlfriend character watchable and enjoyable, Davis brings a certain offbeat quirkiness to the mother character, and, not surprisingly, Downey Jr is fantastic. Anything, and I mean anything, that he’s in he’s utterly superb. He manages to somehow play so many different kinds of characters in so many different, brilliant ways but at the same time bringing his usual quirks and likeable nature to the table, no matter what the role. He doesn’t quite steal the film, as Yelchin gets considerable more screen time and attention, but I don’t think that was the point. Downey Jr is quite happy to sit on the sidelines and allow it to be the Yelchin’s film but at the same time providing that extra something.

On top Charlie Bartlett is a semi light-hearted teen comedy about a student entering and gaining the popularity of a public American high school. Underneath it tackles some tough subject, including drug taking, bullying, abandonment and at one point even suicide. But despite those subjects being addressed it doesn’t enter such a serious area that it stops being a comedy, although at times a fairly dark comedy at that. The film is almost always kept focused on the title character, someone who is fascinating and very watchable as he interacts with the students, helping them with their problems, and his developing relationship with his girlfriend and the principal of the school.

It will be more than likely that the age group Charlie Bartlett revolves around won’t go and see it. It may be a bit of a small film to draw the masses, and even on DVD I don’t think it seems different enough from the rest of the high school comedies to do all that well. Which is a shame because although the tone shifts a lot more than it should and it doesn’t add all that much to a well turned genre it still is worth seeing for a fresh lead performance, some smart insight into high school life and just a general likeability that’s refreshing to see in 21st century cinema.

Director - Michael Haneke

Writer - Michael Haneke

Starring - Naomi Watts, Michael Pitt, Brady Corbet, Tim Roth, Devon Gearheart

Review:

It’s starting to become popular for filmmakers from foreign countries to make films in English or in this case remaking their very own film into the language. Michael Haneke, the master of uncomfortable, high tension situations, has decided to attempt this with his very own film of the same name. And this just goes to show that this little experiment by foreign directors completely works.

Based on the 1997 film of the same name, Funny Games tells the story of a family travelling out to there country cabin to stay. Once there they are soon taken hostage by two mysterious and psychotic young men and forced to play a set of physical and mental games.

Since I haven’t seen Haneke’s original film from over ten years ago, I can’t comment on whether or not this updating is much the same or if it’s any better. What I can say, however, is that if the original is anywhere near as impressive as this telling of the tale then I will be very surprised indeed. Needless to say I loved this film, everything from its self conscious way of doing things to the mannerisms of the two psychotic protagonists. Everything about the film is just so original, innovative and just completely different from anything I have seen in a long time.

As I mentioned the film is fantastically self conscious of what it is and plays around with audience expectations and genre conventions. The film does what normally is an unthinkable thing to do in filmmaking and that is it breaks the fourth wall. There are three or four examples of times where one of the young male ‘game players’ turns to the camera, just as if the audience is sitting there and is part of the situation, and talks to you. It is a bold move to make and one that could have worked horribly against the film but luckily it works fantastically.

To say the film is quite over the top would be a big understatement. It takes everyday life and effectively exaggerates it for cinematic purposes. But at the same time the film seems creepily realistic, not least of all in it’s scenes of violence and mind games, keeping you very much in the moment even if you don’t necessarily want to be there. Haneke is a master at forcing the audience to sit through the most uncomfortable situations, blatantly showcasing something but at the same being very sarcastic about it. As a result although the film is creepy, uncomfortable and at times disturbing it is blackly funny. The dialogue is the main cause of this, the little conversations between the two young men and the instructions for the ’funny games’ providing for some laughs amongst the otherwise deadly serious situations.

I loved the chemistry and interaction between the two young men. Michael Pitt plays the semi-leader of the two, the character who puts in motion the majority of the ‘funny games’ and situations. The two have nicknames for each other, things such as “Beavis and Butthead” or “Tubby”, and it’s never quite clear whether or not they are being serious by anything they say to each other or to the victimised family. This makes for an unpredictable experience where you’re never quite sure what will happen next and not once are you able to know how the film is going to turn out. As stated by the fourth wall breaking scenes the film knows what the audience is expecting and it’s not going to allow you the satisfaction of it playing out the way you think or expect it to.

The family in the film consists of Naomi Watts, Tim Roth and Devon Gearhart. Watts is her usual brilliant self, playing here someone you can’t definitely sympathise with. Roth, a criminally underrated and underused actor, has a fairly smaller part compared to Watts, Pitt and Corbet so there’s not much to note of him here expect perhaps his believability as the helpless father and his spot-n American accent. Even Gearhart, who plays the son of the family, does a stellar job considering his age. But I think acting takes the backseat to everything else in the film; even if the acting was sub-par I still don’t think it would have made all that much difference.

Funny Games (US – as the film dubs it) is as uncomfortable, unconventional and most notably unpredictable of a film experience you are likely to find in the last few and upcoming few years. It takes audience expectations, acknowledges them and then disregards them, which is essentially what makes the film so effective. It may appear sadistic and pointless but there is a lot more to Funny Games than meets the eye.

Director - Brian De Palma

Writer - Brian De Palma

Starring - Izzy Diaz, B.B. Rush, Patrick Carroll, Mike Figuero, Ty Jones, James Sweet, Rob Devaney

Review:

There has been a bunch of Iraq-war related ‘Hollywood’ style films over the past few months that focused more conversations in other countries rather than showcasing what’s going on in Iraq itself. Writer/director Brian De Palma has jumped right into the thick of what’s going on in the war in Iraq, documenting it in a fairly original kind of way. But rather than the film being innovative, thought provoking and well made it is in fact in bad taste, exploitative, seemingly sloppily put together and just generally a pretty bad film.

The film is basically a 90 minute montage of stories about US soldiers in Iraq, particularly focusing on an alleged incident involving the US soliders and the rape and murder of a 15 year Iraqi girl.

If you are making a film about such a terrible incident then you have to do one of two things; you have to either avoid showing anything graphic and focus more on the feelings of all the people involved and perhaps the incidents before and after the main incident. Or you have to tackle the subject completely head on, getting down to the gritty realism of the incident and show the aftermath of everything related to it. De Palma has made his film somewhere in the middle of these two, choosing to kind of hint at the atrocities happening in Iraq before now and right at this moment but not really having the guts to show it in it’s full reality.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I am not saying I wish to sit and watch a 90 minute film showing the brutal rape and murder of a young girl (amongst other terrible things) in full view and reality but I just wish if someone is going to make a film about a terrible incident such as this then they have the guts to go the whole way. De Palma’s intentions are probably admirable and genuine, but he has made this film in all the wrong ways resulting in an almost allergic reaction from me, and I’m sure many other audience members.

As far as the film goes itself, how it’s made and the like, it doesn’t hold much merit in that area either. First off, as a whole, the film is badly made, or at least it seemed that way to me. Some would argue that the rough, choppily cut style is an explicit intention on De Palma’s part but as far as I’m concerned I quite doubt it. The film starts off as a video diary account of what happened in July 2006, a first hand view of the US soldiers before the alleged incident. The person holding the camera filming his video diary turns the camera on himself and clearly states to the camera/audience that this is not a Hollywood movie of the war in Iraq, that there will be no “heart wrenching” music accompanying it, forcing emotions from you. And yet, in the very next scene, it cuts from the video diary style to being filmed in a very generic fasion with an accompanying, emotion grabbing musical score and shots of the US soldiers behind gun turrets scouting the area for threats including older people and young children. Is it just me or is that a tad contradictory on the film’s part?

The incident focused on in the film is a tragic and terrible story on it’s own but even so in a movie you need more than that for it to be truly effective to an audience. Like I said De Palma teeters on the edge of showing some of the things in full view but never really goes through with it. Even down to when we (half) see the focused incident; the camera half looks around the doorway but promptly turns away. I repeatedly was actually angry at De Palma for not having the will and the guts to fully convict himself to the project.

As a result of his hap hazard filmmaking I didn’t feel the intended emotions at any time. I felt disgust, annoyance and occasionally sheer anger but all for the wrong reasons. I should have felt those things because of what was happening in the film but rather I felt them because of how much the film did almost everything in completely the wrong way.

Despite De Palma’s reluctance to show us what the film is about there is one scene showcasing the beheading of a US soldier. It doesn’t show you explicitly but it implies it strongly enough and at one point actually shows you the aftermath of the actions by the Iraqi soldiers. On the one hand I am glad De Palma, in this one scene, convicted to the film and actually showed us something but on the other there was absolutely no need to even have that be shown on-screen. In really any way the film can’t win.

Redacted is the first film in a while I have physically been angry at after watching it. It should have been heart breaking, thought provoking, discussion starting, well made filmmaking. But rather it’s a sloppy, exploitative, condescending and at time disgusting propaganda piece. It won’t be that to all but it certainly is to me.

Director - Wong Kar Wai

Writer - Wong Kar Wai 

Starring - Norah Jones, Jude Law, Natalie Portman, David Strathairn, Rachel Weisz

Review:

Wong Kar Wai, the man behind such visually told wonders such as In The Mood for Love and 2046, has attempted his first English language film, in an American setting with western actors. The result is My Blueberry Nights, a visually beautiful but very poorly functioning and quite pointless cinematic disappointment.

A young woman (Jones) takes a soul-searching journey across America to resolve her questions about love while encountering a series of offbeat characters, including a café owner (Law), a gambler (Portman) and an alcoholic (Strathairn), along the way.

In the mentioned In The Mood For Love and especially with 2046, Wong Kar Wai managed to tell a beautiful and engaging love story (continued through both films), overcoming certain plot issues by having gorgeous visuals and poetic and involving dialogue. With My Blueberry Nights he has delivered his very first attempt at an English language film and I was looking forward to see if his magic worked in anything other than an Asian language. As it turns out, in my opinion anyway, whatever he does in his native tongue it just doesn’t translate well at all into English. It’s probably not his fault, you can’t blame him for trying new things but I think now he just has to accept that he needs to stick to the language he knows.

It’s no surprise that the biggest strength of My Blueberry Nights is the visuals. The film is incredible to look at, with so many contrasting colours really catching both eyes at almost all times and for the most part taking over the attention of the audience. Everything else in the film I felt was just there to accompany the stunning visual palette of the film, as opposed to the cinematography being the backdrop to things like the dialogue and the story.

Speaking of story, the film doesn’t really have one and there in lies one of it’s biggest problems. Even though it has a basic outline of a plot nothing really happens in the film. It starts off with some, again, wonderful looking scenes but scenes that seem meaningless none the less. From there it sets off on the road to nowhere and by film’s end we are right back exactly where we started off. If the film had ended with a big revelation or change of tone for example I maybe would have been a bit more impressed but the way it turned out was just the icing on the cake of making the film seem utterly pointless.

As far as cast and the acting I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand Norah Jones is great as the broken-hearted young leading lady, a character we can empathize and sympathise with, whatever has gone wrong in her life, no matter how small the issue. Natalie Portman as the charming, daring gambler is both great fun to watch and pretty pointless as a character. But bringing the acting up to a more positive level is the addition of David Strathairn, someone I wouldn’t associate with wanting to work with this director or in this type of film. Anything, and I mean anything, that he makes an appearance in he is a or in most cases the highlight of the film and here is no different. Although his character isn’t in it for very long he still is in it enough for me to be thoroughly impressed by his unusual role.

Weighing down the acting is the inclusion of Rachel Weisz and Jude Law. Weisz, although putting everything she can into the role, extremely overacts here. Just because you are crying, shouting and generally drawing a high amount of attention to yourself doesn’t make your performance good. Some may see it as fantastic whereas I found it to be unnecessarily over the top. Law, although charming in his usual Jude Law kind of way, gives a horrible attempt at a Mancunian accent and his character just isn’t all that believable. Fortunately Strathairn saves the acting side of things but it was a close call indeed.

The other major problem with the film is the unrealistic dialogue. The poetic, flowing nature of Wai’s dialogue is now confirmed to only work in his native language. For some strange reason the dialogue, in English, sounds forced and fake.

So even though I didn’t hate My Blueberry Nights by any means, the film looks absolutely gorgeous and some of the characters and acting are very impressive, but there’s just too much wrong with it for me to speak generally positively about it. Every scene seems quite forced, most don’t fit as well as they should together and the dialogue is unrealistic. Mr Wai, please, next time, just leave the translator at home.

Director - Mitchell Lichtenstein

Writer - Mitchell Lichtenstein

Starring - Jess Weixler, John Hensley, Josh Pais, Hale Appleman, Lenny von Dohlen, Ashley Springer

Review:

Not since 2005’s fantastic Hard Candy has there been a film that will make male audience members feel so uncomfortable when watching. Teeth is sure to have pretty much every male who watches it crossing their legs and averting their eyes, but even so the movie is surprisingly enjoyable.

A stranger to her own body, innocent Dawn discovers she has a toothed vagina when she becomes the object of violence. As she struggles to comprehend her anatomical uniqueness, Dawn experiences both the pitfalls and the power of being a living example of the vagina dentata myth.

I think it’s pretty safe to say that the subject that the film is based around hasn’t been explored in any film before this. The reasons for this should be obvious; guts and censorship. How could someone make a movie about such a thing and get it put onto cinema screens while getting around censorship issues and the fact of how many people would go and see it? Writer/director Mitchell Lichtenstein has certainly found a way resulting in a leg-crossing, uncomfortable-at-times but at the same time highly enjoyable and darkly funny little flick.

Perhaps the reason for Lichtenstein exploring this subject is to have a movie where women or one woman has power over men in the film. Probably to get revenge for all those movies depicting horrible men doing horrible things to woman, now it’s the woman’s turn. In the screening I was in I heard just about every woman laughing with delight whenever a severing scene occurred. What that says about women I dread to even think. But even though it’s not the most comfortable of film experiences for a male viewer it still is a really enjoyable film. Everything that happens is just all part of the fun, graphic scenes and all.

Even though the film has a high age rating, I still wasn’t expecting it to be all that graphic. I expected lots of bad language, sex scenes and perhaps even physical violence. But what I didn’t expect was the graphic nature and a lot of the shots in the film. The aftermath of the “teeth attacks” are shockingly shown in pretty much full detail, at least for a few seconds which is long enough for anybody. Every single person in the audience I was in groaned and gasped with shock and disbelief at the fact that they actually showed what had been alluded to for the first part of the film. Teeth promises something shocking and it certainly delivers many-a-time.

The reason the film works is because of its gimmicky premise. There isn’t really all that much else in the film to take note of, everything pretty much revolves around the one thing. But in this case I didn’t mind that at all, in fact I welcomed it. Sometimes if a premise is as good as this one is then it’s more than fine to just concentrate on that for the entire film and not try to cram anything else into it. The result of doing this with Teeth is a focused film that knows what it wants to be and makes no bones about parading it in front of the audience.

The actress who plays the “gifted” protagonist in the film, Jess Weixler, I found very likeable and very watchable. She brings a certain ray of innocence to the role that was much needed and much appreciated. There is a host of supporting actors who you will have seen in other films and TV shows all over the place and this adds that annoying but enjoyable sense of, “where do I know them from?”.

So even though the premise may be gimmicky and there isn’t much else to it apart from that it still is an enjoyable albeit occasionally uncomfortable cinematic experience. The idea is explored as far as it can without it being dragged out and the gore to accompany the dreaded scenes is used brilliantly. As far as I’m concerned; Teeth get s a big, sharp incisor up.

Director - Paul Thomas Anderson

Writer - Paul Thomas Anderson

Starring - Daniel-Day Lewis, Paul Dano, Ciaran Hinds, Barry Del Sherman, Paul F. Thompkins

Review:

It’s not surprising that Paul Thomas Anderson’s newest offering There Will Be Blood has gotten so much critical acclaim. After Boogie Nights and Magnolia it seemed that Anderson had hit his filmmaking peek. But There Will Be Blood may very well be his finest film to date, and that’s saying something indeed.

Daniel Day-Lewis plays Daniel Plainview, a miner who one day receives a mysterious tip-off about an area of land that is on top of a lot of oil. He heads out with his son HW, to take their chances drilling oil in the small but profitable town. Once there they meet a young preacher, Eli, and they soon make their lucky oil strike.

There Will Be Blood is not a film for everyone. Anyone who happens across it not knowing anything about it with more than likely be turned off by it. You need to know what you’re getting yourself in for, know the director, the actors and everything about it beforehand. It is a strange film, less worried about sticking with conventional filmmaking techniques and more about going its own way and doing what it wants to. The result is a sprawling film about family, faith, greed, power and how all of these affect and shape the lives of people. Like with Anderson’s other films most things aren’t set in stone. Most things are left open to interpretation, from what the film is about and the point of it even down to the dialogue and attitudes of the performances. It makes for an unusual experience, grabbing all sorts of usually untouched feelings and emotions from the viewers.

Over the past 15 years Daniel Day-Lewis has starred in only 6 movies, his career something you definitely couldn’t describe as prolific. Day-Lewis himself can, however, be described as many things; talented, engaging, fascinating and engrossing among many others. Since he pretty much picks and chooses his roles at will I think it is safe to say he believed in There Will Be Blood and his role as Daniel Plainview.  He is nothing short of astonishing here as the greedy, power-hunger “oil man”, a performance to rival the greatest of all time. And from the numerous award nominations and critical acclaim it is clear I am not the only one who thinks so. What he brings to the table not many actors working today can match, he not only plays the character at hand, he becomes them and There Will Be Blood is his finest example of that. Looking at how quiet and meek he is in real-life it is astonishing how different he is when playing Plainview or any character for that matter. It requires something truly special as an actor for them to make the audience forget who they really are and believe in the character and Day-Lewis does just that.

The supporting actors are really just that. No one really has all that much screen-time, although they are pivotal to the film as a whole. Not least is the character of Eli, played with shocking conviction by Paul Dano. In the end though this is 100% Day-Lewis’ movie, with everyone else just there to accompany his magnificent leading performance.

Many audience members will feel there is something missing or at least not right with There Will Be Blood. The story itself isn’t the most compelling and how it plays out isn’t wound as tight together as most movies. As far as the film goes the area to look at and concentrate on is the technical side of things. First off is the musical score, created by Radiohead’s Johnny Greenwood. It is one of the most unusual, attention grabbing scores to accompany a film in a long time, and from opening note to closing it is clear it’s a work of genius. Sometimes a musical score can be annoying and just get in the way of what’s happening on-screen but in this case it fits in perfectly, really delivering the intended emotional and powerful impact. If you can think of a more unusual score in the 21st so far then let me know, because I sure as hell can’t.

Cinematographer Robert Elswit does a wonderful job of capturing the essence of the time period and showcasing the gorgeous landscapes in such a way that is very pleasing to look at. This adds to the list along with The Assassination of Jesse James and No Country for Old Men as a few of the most visually stunning films of the last few years.

It’s not clear right away what the point of There Will Be Blood is or at least what’s it’s trying to say to the audience. It, at first, seemed a bit perplexing to say the least but after a few hours of thought and reflection everything becomes a bit clearer. Essentially the film is about greed, faith and the search for power and how it shapes the life of one man.

I can’t say enough good things about There Will Be Blood. It really is as good as everyone says, and particularly worth it for the phenomenal performance by Daniel Day-Lewis. Directly afterwards the film may leave you perplexed but you’ll soon realize it’s a masterpiece. There Will Be Awards.

Director - Thomas Gilou

Writer - Jean Cosmos, Thomas Gilou

Starring - Gérard Depardieu, Nathalie Baye, Mathieu Amalric, Samy Seghir, Medy Kerouani, Mohamed Fellag

Review:

Similar to My Brother Is An Only Child, which I loved, Michou d’Auber aims to combine comedy and drama into one package. Where the mentioned film did it perfectly this has a quite uneven balance of the two, resulting in a sometimes funny and charming but an often confusing experience.

Set in France during the struggle for Algerian independence, Messaoud’s mother is terminally ill and his father, who works long hours at a factory, can’t look after him and his brother, Abdel, anymore so he puts them into foster care. Abdel is taken to work on a farm but Messaoud is taken to live with a childless woman, who hides Messaoud’s Arab origins from her ex-army husband. Re-named Michel/Michou, the young boy has to deal with living with these new people and away from his parents and older brother.

Taking Michou d’Auber for what it, at first, appears to be and what it’s trying to accomplish from the viewer is something which I had to do. Otherwise I would be confused right off the bat as far as what the film was supposed to be. At first it’s a light comedy, what I was explicitly expecting, and for the first hour or so it delivered what it promises to. Taking humour from everyday situations and with the added appeal of a funny and loveable young protagonist. Everything is set up very well, the story compelling enough and serious underneath but with a layer of light comedy on top to keep it from being too serious. As the film goes on, however, it takes some big left turns into extremely serious territories with scenes that were, quite frankly, completely out of place. It was literally like they had switched one of the reels with a different movie at these points and then switched it back when the according scene ended. I felt confusion and annoyance at a few points because of the quick and un-called for shift of gears in the latter half of the film.

Samy Saghir, who plays the young Messaoud, was just terrific here. For an actor as young as he is he did a fantastic job as the lead, completely outdoing all of the older actors in every scene with him. He is charismatic, charming, loveable, funny and just a great actor to watch. I am sure he will get many more roles in the next few years after this and I will look forward to following his career.

He is supported very well by people like Gérard Depardieu, as the hulking, overbearing adoptive father, and Nathalie Baye, as the understanding and very likeable adoptive mother. After his recent fantastic performance in The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, Mathieu Amalric makes an appearance as Messeoud’s sympathetic teacher and admirer of his stepmother. As far as I can tell as an international audience member the entire supporting cast did their jobs well, laying the ground for young Saghir to walk on.

As much as I hated the sudden shifts in tone from comedy to drama when it was funny it was really funny. Similar to My Brother, this draws comedy from everyday situations and the likeable nature of our main character. Like I have mentioned Messaoud is such a great character to just hang out with and he provides many comedy moments to have you chuckling as the minutes fly by.

So Michou d’Auber may not be all of what it could have been in terms of quality, as the tone is misjudged at times and when the film turns deadly serious it doesn’t really work as well as it should have but having said that it’s not a bad film either. The performances are all great, with a decisively fantastic one from the young Samy Saghir. When the film revels in it’s aimed at comedy it works fantastically, giving the audience more than a few chuckles. The good things in life is something that cinema rarely explores or even acknowledges and happily Michou d’Auber does both.

Director - Daniele Luchetti

Writer - Daniele Luchetti

Starring - Elio Germano, Riccardo Scarmarcio, Angela Finocchiaro, Massimo Popolizio, Alba Rohrwacher

Review:

With the many American and British films we get in cinemas nowadays it’s nice to be reminded that other countries make great films too. An example of this is My Brother Is An Only Child, a strange mix of comedy and drama in just about equal measure resulting in a decisively refreshing and thoroughly satisfying experience.

The film tells the story of two brothers growing up in a communist family in Italy in the 1960’s and 70’s.

Similarly to the highly regarded, by your reviewer, Phillip Seymour Hoffman/Laura Linney film
The Savages, the reason this film works as well as it does is it’s perfect blend of drama and comedy. The latter takes the front seat when it comes down to it but when studied in a more general way there is a pretty equal measure of the two. It’s not the kind of comedy you normally associate with a film branded as just that but more the kind that’s “funny because it’s true”. The lead character, played brilliantly by Elio Germano, injects the light (and sometimes crude) comedic touches to the everyday situations the film showcases and the other actors are clearly playing off of him. That’s not saying that Germano is the only talent to behold here, it’s just he is clearly the lead and everyone else is there pretty much to serve his character’s purpose within the film. The type of everyday comedy that his character and just the film in general provides means that most people can find something to find funny in the film. Even though international audience members can’t relate to the time or indeed the place that the film is set in, it still has something there for all to relate to, or at least have a good chuckle with.

Besides the enthrallingly cheeky and full of life performance by Germano there is a host of excellent performances to support him. From his determined and almost single-minded brother to his rightfully complaining mother. All the characters and performances feel grounded in the real world as we watch them deal with everyday situations and even the more extravagant ones that crop up throughout the course of their lives. The film is endearing when necessary but can, at any moment, quickly change gears into something far more serious. The film gets its mix of emotions and genres completely on the spot and as a result it feels well put together and very satisfying.

The film starts off as a definite comedy, playing on real life situations and turning them into moments to chuckle at. We see Germano’s character as a younger ten year old boy, bouncing through the scenes full of radical ideas and dreams of what he wants to be. He almost purposefully defies his family’s values and their beliefs, almost acting as a rebel towards his family and his brother in particular. During an amusing scene where his brother attempts to “get those fascist ideas out of his head” he proceeds to dunk his head into a vat of water. This acts as the film’s transition of his character from a younger boy to a man. This is just one example of lots of interesting ways the film chooses to go about showing certain things that would otherwise be done in a fairly generic way.

As the runtime of the film goes on it starts to slowly morph into a more serious drama. Although there are slight comedic touches still here and there to keep the film from being depressing it still, none the less, becomes a drama as opposed to the comedy it started out as. There is a backdrop storyline of politics to the film and up until the switch to the more serious tone that’s how it remained. But the politics come more into play as the film goes and although I preferred the comedic style of the first half of the film I still appreciated the fact that politics had to come into play at some point and the way the film makes the transition is very skilfully timed. By film’s end the political aspect takes firmly hold of the reins and it’s hard to explain but it just felt right and correct.

The public film community needs a big reminder that countries other than America and the UK make movies. My Brother Is An Only Child is a fine example of European cinema that should be appreciated more by the masses. Funny, enjoyable, involving and well made are all words that apply to this film. It’s not only movie for film buffs but a film for everyone.

Director - Nadia Connors, Leila Connors Petersen

Writer - Nadia Connors, Leonardo DiCaprio

Starring - Leonardo DiCaprio (Narrator),
(Rest as themselves) Kenny Ausubel, Thom Hartmann, Wangari Maathai, Stephen Hawking

Review:

The state of the world that we live in is something that we all need to take notice of. Just ignoring it and going on the way we’re used to is and will continue to cause virtually irreparable damage to our planet. That’s the ultimate message that The 11th Hour tries to and successfully gets across. It may be a given that the subject matter is an important one but the film is a big reminder and a huge kick up the butt for those ignorant and apathetic human beings out there.

The film gives an in-depth look at the state of the global environment including visionary and practical solutions to restoring the planet’s ecosystems.

Produced and narrated by none other than Leonardo DiCaprio, and containing some very intellectual insights by some of the world’s top men when it comes to this subject, The 11th Hour is clearly a film to be taken notice of. I am quite surprised that it hasn’t been making bigger waves in the film community. Al Gore’s documentary of a few years ago, the aptly titled An Inconvenient Truth, made a big splash when it was released and I am fairly shocked that The 11th Hour isn’t replicating that. In many ways it is better than the mentioned film, certainly as far as involvement goes. Let’s face it, Gore’s film was basically just about a PowerPoint presentation for 90 minutes (although kudos for making that work) whereas The 11th Hour has so much thought and attention to detail that it becomes another experience entirely.

As I said the attention to detail was fantastic in the film. There are so many images of the earth, and the state that it’s in around the entire world, that the brain barely has time to take it all in. This could be seen a s a weakness but personally I found the amount of information was set at the right volume.

At the same time as the film being filled with amazing and impacting images it is also one of those “talking-heads” kind of documentaries. There is a problem with that concept in general if the subject the film is taking a look at isn’t completely interesting and affective to the masses. In those cases the film will become boring before the first hour is up and loss of interest will hit the highest point possible. Needles to say The 11th Hour looks at what is probably the single most relevant and most important subjects today and therefore the film keeps you watching, interested and extremely involved until the final credits roll.

The host of intelligent people (including one Stephen Hawking) that they got to appear in the film were impressive. The film skilfully intersperses their insightful knowledge and input with the impacting images and video footage.

It’s nice to see an actor like Leonardo DiCaprio take an active interest in the subject of global warming. It shows that not all famous celebrities are just interested in money, fast cars and big houses (not naming any names of course). Some are acting appropriately in doing something about this mess that we have gotten ourselves into and although it may not be the most radical of attempts this still shows that they are interested in things other than their own lives.

I may have been affected so much by what the film had to say that I have praised it as highly as I have rather than thinking about the actual film itself and how it’s made. It’s not the perfect documentary, as far as how it’s been put together, but it’s not clunky and hap-hazardly done in any way either. It looks slick and polished; if nothing else it’s a fantastic film to look at.

The 11th Hour is an impressive documentary indeed; well made, informative, involving and very impacting it certainly deserves a hell of a lot more attention and praise than it has been getting up until now. The people talking within the film are interesting and they give us shocking information about the state of our planet. It may not be the world’s greatest documentary but it certainly gets across the world’s most important message.

Director - Julian Schnabel

Writer - Ronald Harwood

Starring - Mathieu Amalric, Emmanuelle Seigner, Marie-Josee Croze, Anne Cosigny

Review:

There was a lot of potential for The Diving Bell and the Butterfly to be manipulative and emotion-grabbing. To say that it isn’t those things and is instead a thoroughly moving, extremely powerful and genuinely compelling film would be a huge understatement.

The film tells the true story of Jean-Dominique Bauby, a successful magazine editor who one day randomly suffers a massive stroke leaving him paralyzed from head to toe with the exception of his left eye.

Of the many positive attributes that The Diving Bell has, perhaps the most admirable is the way in which most of the film is shot. The film opens literally by the opening of Jean-Dominique’s eye and we proceed, for the first 20 minutes or so anyway, to see everything from exactly his point of view. Without the privilege of a full view of everything going around us we are forced into the character’s realism, as audience members we are literally trapped inside this man’s body with his eye being the only point of perspective. It sounds terribly annoying but from moment one it soon becomes clear that this is an innovative, original and absorbing way to tell this story.

Although we are only able to see out of one eye-view and right in front of us, thankfully the protagonist’s doctors come in from time to time and put him in a wheelchair which allows us more to see. Amalric gives narration throughout most of the film but as his paralyzed body lies in his hospital bed or gets moved out for some fresh air he will describe his feelings and what he is thinking at any given moment. This ranges from thoughts of loneliness and sadness to happy memories and even some light humour. It is the latter that stops the film from being very depressing and instead it has an undercurrent of humour and a general “look on the bright side of things” kind of attitude.

After the first part of the film is over, where we see everything from the point of view of Jean-Dominique, the film transforms into more standard, third-person shots. Every so often we will be put back into the shoes of Bauby but for the most part, from then on we get to see things in a very full and familiar way. Frustration is a vital emotion for the audience to feel when watching this film. It’s one of the few times where I can actually say frustration was welcome, as it gives us a chance to feel the same as what the character is. After the initial frustration of only seeing through one eye we then have to go through the ordeal of trying to communicate. Since the character can’t speak the speech-therapist has devised a technique where she holds up a card with letters on it and as she speak the letters out loud Bauby will blink every time she says a letter he wants to say so that he can form words and sentences. She will say a letter then; BLINK. Another letter then; BLINK. Then the process again; E, A, S, R, L, D, N, BLINK. We are forced throughout the film to endure this almost torturous technique of communication, although we may not be in the character’s head anymore we are none the less forced to feel the frustration and annoyance that he is feeling.

If you met Jean-Dominique in his pre-paralyzed state on the street; a smug, self-loving and sometimes pompous person may not be the most enjoyable to be around. But not surprisingly the situation that he becomes a part of and the state he’s in helps us to sympathize and empathize with him not only in his affected state but in his normal one as well. Simply for the fact that we know where and how he will end up. This could have easily been done in a very sappy, manipulative way but director Julian Schnabel and writer Ronal Harwood handle the film in such a way that everything rings true, including the performances and the events that take place and it assures us that the emotions we are feeling throughout are well deserved and not forced.

The performance of Mathieu Amalric could be seen in two lights; either that it is brilliant for its realism, believability and raw power or that it’s a role that simply anyone could have played. I am leaning far more to the former as I suspect the actor really believed in the role and gave it his all as opposed to “just doing it for the awards”.

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is a fresh and unique look (pardon the pun) at the clichéd overcoming adversity tale. It takes a sad and quite depressing story and reshapes it into a strangely up-beat and multi-layered look at one man’s extraordinary tale. It’s not without its little weaknesses here and there, including a sense of the film being dragged out just a tad at stages, but they are strongly overshadowed by everything coming from the positive side of the fence. Moving, compelling, original and fascinating in almost every way, The Diving Bell packs a subtle but very powerful emotional punch.