Blu-ray reviews and the new podcast now up at Obsessed with Film

Obsessed with Film is the place to go right now to read a couple of new Blu-ray reviews I have written. Reviews of high-definition releases of both Bertolucci's 'The Last Emperor' and David Lynch's 'Inland Empire' can now be found there for your reading pleasure as of today.

As mentioned last week, Obsessed with Film is also the new home of Jon and I's regular movie podcast (previously Splendor Cinema, now apparently entitled 'Barrenechea and Beames'). Our maiden voyage for OWF features reviews of 'Dogtooth' and 'Whip It' (reviewed in textual form here last week), as well as a competition to win a copy of Mark Kermode's book "It's Only a Movie". The podcast itself is much the same: it's still hosted by Jon Barrenechea and myself and still recorded in the projection booth of the UK's oldest cinema (the Duke of York's in Brighton). So no cause for concern, gentle listener!

Anyway, I hope you follow the podcast to its new home and check out my reviews and Jon's brilliant article on piracy whilst you're there!

'No One Knows About Persian Cats' review: Everybody wants to be a cat...

Another winner of the Un Certain Regard prize at last year’s Cannes film festival (I reviewed ‘Father of My Children’, here last month and a review for 'Dogtooth' will follow shortly), Bahman Ghobadi’s ‘No One Knows About Persian Cats’ is a fresh and exciting piece of Iranian filmmaking. It is reminiscent of 2007’s French animation ‘Persepolis’ which also looked at “western” music in Iran and managed to combine this with a broader critique of social and political problems, to similarly great effect. But whilst that film’s protagonist (Marjane) manages to leave Iran fairly early on in the narrative (and make it to the promised land of Europe), the two central characters in ‘Persian Cats’ spend the entire movie working towards that goal, in the hope of pursuing a musical career which is impossible in their native country. The “indie rock” they play is illegal and they must acquire exit visas to leave Iran, making them the Persian equivalents of Paul Henreid and Ingrid Bergman in ‘Casablanca’.

At the film’s start they have just been released from prison for playing a concert. Their dream of touring Europe sees them embark on a ‘Wizard of Oz’ style journey, encountering a number of different musicians as they hope to build a new band. Along the way we are taken on a tour of the contemporary Iranian underground music scene and a range of musical styles (rap, traditional, folk, heavy metal) thriving in a variety of makeshift venues (a cow shed, a rooftop shack). Whenever Negar and Ashkan are introduced to a new group of musicians we are shown a pastiche music video, which apes the conventions of that generic style. These have been cleverly edited together by Iranian musician Farbod Khoshtinat and are set to images of everyday Iranian life (people walking the streets of Tehran, buying goods or driving cars) in a way which serves to underline the fact that Iran is a modern city, perhaps too often accompanied on film by traditional Persian music. In fact, within the film traditional Iranian music is at one point described as “world music” – as seemingly distant from some modern Iranians as it is to us.

Much of film focuses on the exciting possibility of the duo putting on a farewell rock concert and the excitement that generates (especially evident near the film’s climax as the underground venue is prepared for the show) reminds us of the simple pleasures we are lucky enough to take for granted: the right to assemble in a group, to dance, to mix with people of the opposite gender, to drink alcohol and to listen to non-religious music. All of these things are being done in secret in ‘Persian Cats’, and without that detachment and jaded irony associated with western counterculture: people are enthusiastic and happy. The Iranian music scene is exciting and cool in the film, without trying to be edgy. In a country where people face real hardships, I suppose they don’t tend to wear misery as a badge of honour. As an upshot of this much of the music is really charming, especially that of the charismatic lead duo.

There is also some really funny stuff in the film, with the duo turning to a fast-talking and delusional movie bootlegger called Nader (Hamed Behdad) in order to arrange their escape. Nader occasionally speaks in English, quoting movie dialogue and there are numerous scenes where he references American films and actors to good comic effect. There is also lot of fun to be had here with Iranian views of American culture. One of the best examples sees a Muslim lady, wearing traditional clothes, saying “I love indie rock! 50 Cent, Madonna!” When she expresses an interest in seeing the farewell concert, Negar replies “God willing you will.” This mixture of western influences and popular culture, alongside earnest commitment to Iranian tradition and religion helps to stop ‘Persian Cats’ from seeming shallow or polemical. As Negar says at the beginning, she doesn’t want to protest, she just wants to play music.

The main point seems to be that these young people would like to be able to play their music in Iran and that the regime is driving otherwise law abiding people out with such intolerant extremism. Indeed Bahman Ghobadi has since left Iran, robbing the country of one of its most prestigious directors and of a founder of the so-called "Iranian New Wave". But the film itself is far from an all-out attack on the governing regime: the most overtly political song is the rap (see the video below), but even that isn’t about religion, but rather takes the more universal theme of social inequality in a world controlled by money. A point which could be made in any country on the Earth. This capitalist mentality is evident when Negar and Ashkan visit one of the film’s bands: the group start talking about their aspirations, all of which are material and sound like something from an episode of MTV Cribs. The film’s earlier comic references to “western” culture (Nicholas Cage, Paramount Pictures etc) could now sound like part of a more sinister hegemonic cultural imperialism. Of course, the film is ultimately against the intolerance and the violence of the Iranian government, but it does not make its points in a way shich is clumsy or unconsidered.

Aesthetically, the film sometimes looks a little amateurish and the music video sequences (whilst clever) can seem a little cheesy. But that said, ‘No One Knows About Persian Cats’ is an enjoyable and at times poignant look at a modern Tehran, which provides a really good insight into the social and cultural life of that city. The film tantalisingly blurs the line between fact and fiction in many ways. For example, the lead actors (Ashkan Kooshanejad and Negar Shaghaghi) boast the same first names as their characters and the bands they encounter are real bands playing themselves. But more relevant and interesting is the movie’s opening scene in which a character talks of a great movie that will be made about the underground music scene in Iran. After seeing ‘Persian Cats’ I was left in no doubt that this is that great movie.



Hopefully you can find the film playing in an arts cinema near you. 'No One Knows About Persian Cats' is rated '12a' by the BBFC.

'Whip It' review: Barrymore's entertaining directing debut

With her debut feature, ‘Whip It’, Drew Barrymore asserts herself as a capable filmmaker, after years in front of the camera and many spent behind the scenes as a producer (on projects as diverse as ‘Donnie Darko’, ‘Music and Lyrics’ and ‘Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle’). But whilst it is hardly surprising that someone raised in the movies should take so easily to making them, it is surprising just how much fun ‘Whip It’ actually is. Boasting the quirky, colourful aesthetics that have almost become the house-style at Fox Searchlight, set to a soundtrack selected by Randall Poster (music supervisor on all the Wes Anderson films) and starring Ellen Page (of ‘Juno’ fame), ‘Whip It’ is well-placed to become an firm “indie” favourite, and deservedly so.

Ellen Page stars as Bliss Cavendar who becomes “Babe Ruthless” when she takes up the alternative, amateur, all-girl US sport of roller derby. Dragged to beauty pageants by pushy mother (played by Marcia Gay Harden), Bliss sees roller derby as a better match for her personality and soon befriends a group of social misfits of varying ages and backgrounds, who are a better match for her quirky, off-beat personality than the fellow students at her high school. She lives in a small Texan town and also sees roller derby as a means of escape to the more exciting and vibrant life possible in the state capital, Austin. This teenage coming of age story takes place, to pleasing effect, alongside the well-worn clichés of the sports movie genre (the rival team; the tough but fair coach; shots of the scoreboard; the big final game; etc).

The best thing about ‘Whip It’ is the sense of fun which runs through the film, aided in no small part by a terrific cast of supporting players: Jimmy Fallon is a charming presence as the derby commentator, Juliette Lewis was born to play Bliss’s sporting rival “Iron Maven” and Daniel Stern is a suitably warm and likable presence as Bliss’s father. The real comic highlight is Andrew Wilson’s brilliant, understated comic performance as the girl’s coach “Razor”, which feels straight out of a Wes Anderson movie and is a consistent delight. It is nice to see him in a sizable role and here he makes his biggest impression since he turned up as “Future Man” alongside his brothers (Owen and Luke) in 1996’s ‘Bottle Rocket’. It is also nice to see Drew Barrymore give herself a small role as “Smashley Simpson”, the most violent member of Ellen Page’s team of roller derby heroes.

There is a palpable sense of joy throughout this movie, which resolves one key confrontation with a light-hearted food fight (cinema’s first since ‘Hook’ in 1991?). One of the great things about ‘Whip It’ is the way in which the derby girls swing elbows and break each others noses with real intent. It is great to such a tough attitude in a film primarily aimed at young girls. Bliss’s decision to give up pageants isn’t simply cosmetic, as it might be in so many other films (probably symbolised by dark eye makeup and wrist bands). Here it’s actually backed-up by an attitude, which is (crucially) about standing up for yourself, as opposed to being anti-social and starting fights.

Where the film suffers is in its third act in which the pacing takes a dip and the laughs cease during the inevitable “down” section of the movie where everything contrives to go wrong all at once for Page’s plucky hero. Some of these threads are necessary for the story of the film: most notably Bliss has to convince her mother that she should be able to take part in roller derby rather than beauty pageants. However, the thread concerning the temporary break-up of her friendship with Alia Shawkat’s character is a major drag and undermines the rest of the movie, which succeeds in convincing us that they are really best friends (who you’d have thought wouldn’t be so prone to irrational implosion). The other low point is the male love interest Oliver, played by Landon Pigg (apparently a singer-songwriter new to acting). Whilst the individual tender moments written for the romantic scenes are fairly sweet, Pigg is just too wet-behind-the-ears and the film becomes a lot less enjoyable when he is onscreen.

Overall, ‘Whip It’ is a confident and thoroughly enjoyable directorial debut for Drew Barrymore. It manages to have an authentic “sisters doing it for themselves” feel, without being tacky or patronising and whilst it didn’t perform amazingly well in the North American Box Office, ‘Whip It’ may eventually find an audience later on (on TV and DVD) and stake its claim for “cult classic” status. But before then: if you’re up for a good time at the pictures, you could do much worse then to buy a ticket for this funny and charming film.

'Whip It' is on general release in the UK and is rated '12A' by the BBFC.

'I Am Love' review, plus the new (and last?) Splendor podcast...

Regular readers (hello mum and dad) may have noticed that this blog has not really been updated with its usual frequency in the last week or so. This has been due to my work for Obsessed With Film, for whom I interviewed Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant and reviewed their latest film 'Cemetery Junction'. During that time I saw 'I Am Love', but have only just been able to take the time to review it here. It is a bit shorter than my usual reviews on here, but I wanted to get something down before I forgot everything about the film! On a seperate note: there is a new Splendor Cinema podcast up in the player at the side of this blog. It is labelled episode seven because whilst the 'Kick-Ass' episode got put up on iTunes, it was the victim of a staff holiday at the Picturehouse site and so seems to have been passed by. When the latest episode appears on iTunes it will (correctly) be number eight.

And number eight, in which Jon and I tackle the subject of the future of cinema and of piracy, may well be the last Splendor Cinema podcast... ever. But have no fear gentle listener! We are re-branding it the "Obsessed With Film" podcast and it will continue in the same vein, but hopefully reaching a larger audience. So keep on listening.

Anyway, here is the 'I Am Love' review:



‘I Am Love’ is an Italian film produced by (and starring) Tilda Swinton and directed by Luca Guadagnino. According to Swinton the film was conceived in part as a tribute to filmmakers “whose claim on the development of the cinematic language is unassailable”. ‘I Am Love’ is apparently “an attempt to honour this kind of bravado” from these great artists who so advanced film as an art form. But whereas the works of Hitchock, Huston and Kubrick (three of the filmmakers cited as influences) were always constructed to appeal to an audience and to provide entertainment, ‘I Am Love’ is content to pander to an art house crowd who will no doubt call it “a sumptuous and sublime work” and will remind us that “Swinton is superb!”. Guadagnino and Swinton may feel that they have paid a tribute to the greats in terms of their execution of the cinematic form as a “toolkit” (again Swinton’s words), but none of the excitement of ‘North by Northwest’ or ‘The Maltese Falcon’ or ‘A Clockwork Orange’ can be felt in this formal exercise in pretension.

Some individual scenes are truly excellent. The film expertly evokes the feeling of a late summer afternoon, with especially beautiful sunlit scenes depicted on Yorick Le Saux’s camera. Le Saux also worked with Swinton on ‘Julia’ and it is easy to see why she would have asked him back for this project: the cinematography is faultless. Similarly evocative is John Adams operatic score, which lends a level of grandeur to the occasion and renders the films visual elegance audible. I would also say that some key scenes and moments did affect me, with one of the film’s key revelations occurring in a purely visual way – surely the mark of the purest kind of cinema. Furthermore, I enjoyed the way in which Edo (Swinton’s favourite son) subtly mirrors his father (and the whole family) in his treatment of women throughout the film and also how the daughter’s homosexuality (an early plot development) is treated with tenderness and real love.

However, despite these admirable qualities the film generally kept me at arms length throughout. It feels like more of a showcase for Tilda Swinton’s undoubted talent, rather than a story that needed to be told. There was one brief chase sequence that alluded to the Hitchcockian influence with it’s pacing and sense of urgency. But the rest of film moves at a wearying pace, as the filmmakers hope that the undoubted visual splendor will keep you hooked. Long, well-composed shots of people sitting around nicely-lit tables can only hold my attention for so long and as early as twenty minutes into the films two hours I found myself bored, however much I really want to admire and applaud anyone who so earnestly celebrates the cinematic.

I can see how, in the age of ‘Transformers 2’ and ‘The Bounty Hunter’, this sort of ambitious and self-indulgent cinema might appeal to those who hunger for something with a bit of substance. But for me, ‘I Am Love’ is an example of the opposite extreme, for as much as ‘Transformers’ is so brazenly artless, ‘I Am Love’ is an example of art for arts sake - which to my mind is ultimately just as artless in the final analysis. Great art doesn’t (or shouldn’t) primarily aspire to be art. ‘I Am Love’ certainly sings of its artiness from the well-lit rooftops of its many splendid Milanese villas. But then maybe it is only fitting that a film entitled ‘I Am Love’ should be so enamored with itself.

'I Am Love' is still playing across the UK in selected screens, including Brighton's own Duke of York's Picturehouse. It is rated '15' by the BBFC.

'Cemetery Junction' review: Check it out at OWF

My review will not be posted here this time! It is up on Obsessed With Film here.

I hope you head over there and enjoy it! Just so you don't leave empty handed, check out this clip from the movie:



Also, check out my interview with the writer/director team behind the film here.

T'was 'Cemetery Junction' day in Soho!

I don't know how much I can really say much about today as I need to give the articles to the website that kindly commissioned them: Obsessed With Film and their generous editor Matt Holmes. But what I can say is that I saw 'Cemetery Junction', the first film by the Gervais/Merchant comedy writing team, at Sony's Soho office (in the world’s most comfortable theatre and on a brilliant screen!) You can read my review shortly (and on OWF). Afterwards, I was lucky enough to be invited to the Soho Hotel where I saw Zach Braff milling around the lobby (and I also passed that guy Lizo from 'Newsround' in the street on the way in). Once at the hotel, I attended a press junket on the second floor, where I was lucky enough to snag a 10 minute interview with Gervais and Merchant themselves (which will also go up on OWF when it's done)!

It was basically like that scene in 'Notting Hill' where Hugh Grant tries to get into a junket as an excuse to talk to Julia Roberts again (only without the possibility of romance, sadly). I really enjoyed the whole experience greatly. Happily, the duo were nice enough to sign my copy of the press notes and a copy of this month's Total Film (which they have guest edited), which I shall treasure.

Anyway, stay tuned at OWF to read my thoughts when they are uploaded. I'll remind you again on here when they are anyway, but got to OWF all the same.

'Cemetery Junction' is rated '15' by the BBFC. It is released on the 14th of April in cinemas everywhere!

'Lourdes' review: My Sweet Lourdes

‘Lourdes’ is a French film (by Austrian director Jessica Hausner) which follows Christine (Sylvie Testud, also seen in the Oscar-winning ‘La Vie en Rose’ in 2007), a woman paralysed from the neck down, as she goes on a pilgrimage to the iconic Catholic site named in the title. There is the sense in ‘Lourdes’ that Christine is possibly not drawn to the journey by her Catholicism, but by the fact that joining up with the group of nuns (who take parties of wheelchair bound people on this pilgrimage) is enabling her to see more of the world: “It is difficult to travel in a wheelchair” Christine tellingly admits early on. But Christine is not cynical or manipulative and has the best intensions. She is not unmoved by Catholic doctrine either, as she clings to the hope that a divine miracle will help her to walk again, a hope encouraged in dreams of the Virgin Mary.

For someone as irreligious as I, the films greatest pleasures are found in its representation of the tacky and crassly commercial side of Catholicism as an organisation, with Mary figurines readily on sale at Holy sites and gaudy neon halo’s adorning many of the Mary statues seen in the film. Similarly, the pilgrims take their group photo on a bench designed exactly for such a purpose outside one religious monument and Christine herself refers to ‘Lourdes’ as “too touristy” and finds it lacking in culture. Amusingly the music on the soundtrack seems to imply commerciality even to the films version of the Ava Maria, which sounds cheesy and synthesized. The film even culminates at a Catholic disco.



But to say that the film is itself anti-Catholic would be unfair and the things I have seen as evidence of commerciality and opportunism could be seen differently by those coming to the film with a different outlook. As the (usually still) camera lingers on scenes of the pilgrims eating dinner, it is up to the viewer to decide where to look and what to make of what is happening during a number of terrifically detailed scenes. It can also be said that the pilgrims themselves seem sincere, as do the majority of the nuns and priests depicted (with the possible exception of a young nun who seems to view the pilgrimage as a Catholic holiday camp and an alternative to summer skiing). Most telling of all is the fact that the film doesn’t do anything to discourage the idea that divine miracles can and do happen. This is another detail which helps to keep the film pleasantly ambiguous and stops it from seeming at all polemical.

Instead of asking the question “do miracles happen?” the film looks at who they may happen to and is mostly concerned with the reactions of people to potential miracles. Perhaps (the film posits) miracles may happen to the nicest people, not necessarily the most pious, and the film would seem to suggest that the two are not necessarily linked. Christine is never mean to anyone, even though she would have cause: she is frequently patronised for being in her condition and sometimes forgotten or ignored by the nun assigned to care for her. She is only really interested in making the best of things. By contrast some of her more pious co-pilgrims seem to gossip and view the receipt of a miracle as some sort of competitive sport.

To say that ‘Lourdes’ is a slow moving film of subtle observations and small moments would be an understatement, as to many it would probably fit the description that “nothing happens”. There is a story here, but it is slight (and I have done my level best not to spoil it here). It is in the interactions of the characters and specifically their treatment of Christine that the film is strongest. It is odd perhaps that a film that accepts the possibility of miracles could be so matter of fact and naturalistic, but maybe that is the point: in a world where miracles exist (and are indeed scrutinized and recorded by the Church) are miracles simply as banal as everything else?

'Lourdes' is playing in a select number of screens across the UK and can be seen at the Duke of York's in Brighton until Thursday. It is rated a 'U' by the BBFC.

IQGamer's David Bierton turns his attention to Kick-Ass...

My good friend Dave Bierton has kindly offered his impressions of 'Kick-Ass' which I reviewed last month on this blog. Dave is generally a video games journalist and has left his comfort zone to contribute this interesting and comprehensive review, which provides a second opinion to my own:

"I went into seeing ‘Kick-Ass’ not knowing what to expect, and left particularly impressed after witnessing what can only be described as an alternative take on the superhero movie. In fact the film isn’t actually a superhero movie at all. Instead it takes inspiration from a number of sources from ‘The Dark Knight’, ‘Kill Bill’, ‘Superbad’, even ‘The Matrix’ and just briefly, Sergio Leone’s Dollars series. The result is a fresh look at what it is like for an ordinary man to become a so-called superhero, with no powers, no cool weapons, just a sheer determination to make a difference, and a lot of luck and chaos which comes his way.

The main reason for me why I enjoyed the film so much, and also why in my opinion it works so well, is down to the mixture of styles and characters, along with the superbly choreographed action sequences, which all balance out and give a grounding to the film’s somewhat ridiculous premise. A kid in high school is as unlikely to become a fighting avenger as much as a multi million-dollar tycoon is to become Batman in real life. However, seeing such a social misfit, a loser lost in the land of the ordinary, as people go, make this almost comedic attempt at vigilantism makes for an entertaining caper in which we all can relate to.

‘Kick-Ass’ as a character provides much of the films comic relief. He can barely stand up the most meagre of street thugs, let alone against a crew of experienced Mafia-style heavies. However he takes on the challenge with all the determination in the world, naivety intact, without really thinking anything through beforehand. It provides the film with some of its funniest scenes, but also its message that there are some serious consequences when taking things into your own hands. Violence always comes at a price, and the question is: is that price one worth paying?

The real star of the show, however, is Chloe Moretz as the pint-sized Hot Girl. The sight of seeing a small thirteen year old girl slicing and dicing her way through a room of hoodlums was particularly amusing, and somewhat shocking at times. Her brutality is only matched by her resolve, never flinching and seemingly enjoying her sadistic antics. Her role, like with Nicholas Cage’s Big Daddy, is played straight, without the intention of comedic effect outside of her outlandish actions. Though hearing her shouting out the ‘c word’ before ripping through her adversaries was a particular highlight, and one of the films most amusing moments. The whole scene felt like some homage to the typical Japanese Anime, with the eclectic score and Moretz’s portrayal of an almost perverse form of innocents and naivety.

I found ‘Kick-Ass’ to be a polished mixture of high-kicking comic book fantasy, combined with the stark realities showcased in ‘The Dark Knight’, along various nods at other superhero and action movies of the last decade or so. It’s all delivered in a reserved, almost understated manner, making some of its more ridiculous characters not only believable, but also integral to making the whole thing work. The combination of comedic elements in the dialogue and action, with serious delivery by Moretz, Cage, and Mark Strong as the villain of the piece, take Kick-Ass from being just another ‘different’ attempt at making a comic book movie into something else entirely. Something much better if you ask me, and one of the most enjoyable films I have seen in a long time.

With regards to a sequel potentially being made at some point -the end of the film sets itself up for one –maybe they shouldn’t really go down that route, especially seeing how the characters progress and develop, the dynamics between them, and the grounded reality of this film. As it stands Kick-Ass works so well as it is, I’d rather not have a cleaver attempt to make the film become a franchise, losing its uniqueness and the things which made it work so well in the first place.

I’d have to say that everyone should at least attempt to see the film at some point, preferably with all the impact that comes with seeing it on the big screen, surround sound and wide viewing angle and all. I’ll be doing just that on Monday at the Dukes, along with my other work cohorts, which should make for a very entertaining evening."

Thanks again to Dave, whose video game analysis can be read on his own blog: IQGamer. We both seem to agree that it is a film well worth watching, so check it out! A conversation about the film between Splendor Cinema's Jon Barrenechea and myself can be heard in our latest podcast, whilst I have also previously written about attending the film's London Premiere.

'Kick-Ass' is still playing regularly at the Duke of York's Picturehouse cinema in Brighton and is rated '15' by the BBFC.

'The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo' review: On men who hate women...

The original Swedish title for this film (and for Stieg Larsson’s original novel) is perhaps more appropriate than that given to English language version. ‘Men Who Hate Women’ is almost an understatement here as we are shown scene after scene of violence (both sexual and non-sexual) towards women and perpetrated by a number of men (young and old).The films titular girl, Lisbeth (played by Noomi Rapace), has her own personal reasons to be hostile towards men, whilst the plot itself centres on the search for a man suspected of brutally murdering a number of young women. But apart from the frequent graphic scenes of rape, nudity and realistic violence the film bears a striking resemblance to a well-made TV detective serial rather than to a feature film. This isn’t because the film looks cheap, as it looks fairly expensive from a technical point of view, but it just feels as though it has a televisual style to it rather than a cinematic one, and so I wasn’t at all surprised to learn that the production team behind it (Yellow Bird) is behind TV’s ‘Wallander’: a detective show staring Kenneth Branagh.

The plot is contrived and conventional by TV whodunit standards: Mikael, disgraced investigative Journalist (played by the sincere and compelling Michael Nyqvist) teams up with Lisbeth (a “punk” computer hacker with a criminal past) to form a mismatched detective duo. They are called upon by an ailing old man to solve the disappearance and suspected murder of his great-Niece, which took place back in the 1960s. Along the way they encounter a number of suspicious, humourless relatives who gather around in plush drawing rooms and say things like “This is preposterous! You have no business being here!” and generally refuse to co-operate with the investigation. I don’t know if/how any of the story plugs into the next two films of the trilogy (which has already been shot and is awaiting release), but the film, as it stands, operates as if it were a standalone story in an episodic television series. Next week: an unrelated murder in another small parochial town of upper-class twits, and so on.



This isn’t to say that ‘The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo’ is bad, however. In fact, it is quite good television. Danish TV director Niels Arden Oplev has done a decent job with the material, even if he is over-reliant on montage during the scenes where evidence is being examined. In fact, for a 2 ½ hour film it is fairly tightly put together and held my interest reasonably well. Refreshingly, the violence is not mined for slickness or cool and is always suitably jarring and grisly, whilst Noomi Rapace isn’t fetishised as the girl and the scenes of sexual violence are allowed to be truly awful. The film presents a seedy and disturbing picture of modern Sweden as a place full of corrupt officials (to put it lightly), little public order (Lisbeth is brutally attacked in a public subway by a gang of young males early on in the film) and of ageing Nazi sympathisers. It’s a far cry from the usual image of an efficient and well-run, if bland, modern Sweden and whilst I can’t vouch for its authenticity, it is interesting to see. Indeed, last year’s much-lauded ‘Let the Right One In’ gave a similarly bleak representation of Sweden as a place full of disconnected alcoholic people, nasty school children and equally appalling weather.

If you are in the mood for a solid crime thriller (and you don’t want something a bit mad like the superior ‘Shutter Island’) then I would recommend you go and see ‘The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo’. However, I’m not sure how this film will play to the ITV 3 crowd as it is less cosy than your average hour with Angela Lansbury or David Suchet and involves considerably more rape and a less clean picture of murder. However, women who hate men are in for a real treat!



'The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo' can still be seen in cinemas across the UK (and indeed the world) including the Duke of York's in Brighton where it continues its run until Thursday. It is rated '18' by the BBFC and a heavily censored version will be airing on ITV 3 next week (if there is any justice).

'Kick-Ass' review: Does exactly what it says on the poster

As I mentioned yesterday, I was lucky enough to attend the UK premiere of Matthew Vaughn’s ‘Kick-Ass’ on Monday night and I had a really great time. Some of this was down to the atmosphere of being part of a big and enthusiastic audience watching a yet-to-be-released film with its stars (and on a massive screen to boot), but most of it was down to the fact that ‘Kick-Ass’ is a brilliantly entertaining film. Probably the most entertaining film I have seen so far this year.

I have not read the Mark Millar comic book on which the film is based, so I couldn’t possibly comment on whether the film remains true to its source material, but I can say that this film is a damn sight better than the last film I saw based on one of his books. ‘Wanted’, which starred James McAvoy and Angelina Jolie as a couple of arsehole assassins, was a truly hateful movie and has some parallels with ‘Kick-Ass’ in that both are ultra-violent and depict a world in which violence is morally fine, so long as the people you are killing are deemed “bad”. Both also have a central character who is basically a weedy outsider (McAvoy in ‘Wanted’ and Aaron Johnson as the title character in ‘Kick-Ass’), but whereas ‘Wanted’ seems to preach that physical weakness is contemptible and has its hero using violence as a way to put himself above others in society (by the end of the film he is superior to his old workmates), ‘Kick-Ass’ is less troubling, as its central nerds are celebrated by the film. In fact in ‘Kick-Ass' the title character is more often the one whose ass is being kicked and, whereas ‘Wanted’ seems to have a nihilistic hatefulness about it, ‘Kick-Ass’ celebrates its naive heroes who are basically determined to protect people and right percieved social wrongs.



Now, even though I found it a lot less distasteful than 'Wanted', there are all sorts of problems with ‘Kick-Ass’ from a political point of view (none of which are too dissimilar from last year’s horrid ‘Harry Brown’ which Vaughn produced). The film has an uncomplicated view of crime (bad people commit it) and an equally uncomplicated view about how to deal with crime (the mass murder of criminals), not to mention that the film’s hoodlums are pretty much all played by ethnic minorities and are of low social class. British actor, Mark Strong, plays his villain as a prototypical Italian mob-type, whilst Nicolas Cage (an Italian-American actor) plays his hero as an ethnically “white” everyman figure. But everything in ‘Kick-Ass’ plays out like a Warner Brothers cartoon (with ‘Kill Bill’ levels of violence and swearing) and is injected with a lot of humour. Whereas ‘Wanted’ is self-consciously “cool” (in a way aimed at pubescent boys, with leather jackets, guns and sexy women belonging to socially retarded geeks) and promotes a violent attitude towards society (not necessarily physical), ‘Kick-Ass’, with its geek heroes, is always more self-effacing - with one of the vigilante’s portrayed by McLovin’ from ‘Superbad’ (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) - and somehow ultimately better natured.

Now I’ve catered for my conscience I can get to writing about the things I really enjoyed about the movie, which was one of very few recent films in which I didn’t check my watch (it packs a lot of great stuff into just under two hours), as it held my attention throughout. For starters, whilst Mark Strong, Aaron Johnson and Christopher Mintz-Plasse are pretty good in their respective roles, Nicholas Cage and the thirteen year-old Chloë Moretz give brilliantly funny performances as the films two stand-out characters: the father and daughter pairing of ‘Big Daddy’ and ‘Hit-Girl’. Nicolas Cage displays suburb comic skills (previously seen in ‘Raising Arizona’ back in 1987 and, more recently in 2002’s ‘Adaptation’) whenever he’s onscreen, with his character (a softly-spoken, gentle father who turns his daughter into a violent, gun-obsessed killer) switching to an Adam West impression when adopting his ‘Big Daddy’ persona. This is not only a playful nod towards Batman of the 1960s, but also possibly a humorous take on Christian Bale’s much-derided change of voice when he dons the armour of the Dark Knight in Christopher Nolan’s films (whatever it is in homage to... it is hilarious).

The action sequences also remind me of Christopher Nolan’s Batman films. Of course, they are formally more similar (as is the film's visual style and design) to Tarantino’s ‘Kill Bill’, but they remind me of ‘The Dark Knight’ because that film represents the last time I really enjoyed action sequences in a cinema. The set-pieces are played out like the very best Warner Brothers cartoons in that they are imaginative and funny in the way they choose to deal pain to all involved (the dispatching of a key villain literally caused me to burst into spontaneous applause). I don’t want to spoil any of the set-pieces themselves here, but they are really impressive and varied (unlike ‘Wanted’ or ‘The Matrix’ in which all the sequences blur into one burst of slow-motion, bullet-time gunfire). The champion of these set pieces is, unquestionably, Moretz’s ‘Hit-Girl’ who really does kick ass whenever she is onscreen (in a manner recalling a miniature version of ‘Kill Bill’s ‘Gogo’).



The Daily Mail will no doubt continue to hate ‘Kick-Ass’ for it’s bad language (the ‘c-word’ coming from the mouth of a thirteen year-old girl will do that) and over the top violence, even though the film’s politics aren’t altogether incompatible with that paper’s own. But putting those issues behind me, I have to admit that ‘Kick-Ass’ was terrifically good fun and I highly recommend it to anyone who likes to go to the movies, sit back and get entertained. It is equal parts funny and exciting and (if it performs at the box-office) may provoke a new wave of independent movie blockbusters.

'Kick-Ass' opens on Friday nationwide and will be played at the Duke of York's in Brighton (where I work). It is (somehow) rated '15' by the BBFC (even though a little girl says 'cunt' and kills almost everyone onscreen in a tidal wave of bloody violence). Jon and I will podcast on it soon, so stay tuned for that.

'Crazy Heart' review: Wrestler lite

In one of the very first shots of 'Crazy Heart' Jeff Bridges tells us that he hates bowling. As good as it is to see him revisit the bowling alley here he is, of course, being "very un-dude" and making it clear from the outset that his Oscar-winning turn as an alcoholic, down-on-his-luck, country singer known as Bad Blake is different from his now iconic turn in ‘The Big Lebowski’. Indeed, Bad Blake is not so easy going and, more importantly, he is less content with his lot in life, harbouring bitterness that he is poor and playing to small crowds whilst the younger Tommy Sweet (Colin Farrell) enjoys far greater success.

Much like other recent films about musicians (such as ‘Nowhere Boy’, ‘Dreamgirls’ or ‘Walk the Line’) ‘Crazy Heart’ is at its most effective when conveying the energy of live performance, with Jeff Bridges and Colin Farrell impressing greatly as singers. I am not a fan of country music by any means, but ‘Crazy Heart’ manages to convincingly show us country music as something approaching white blues music rather than Billy Ray Cyrus-style cheese. Credit for this must go to T-Bone Burnett, who wrote many of the songs in Bad Blake’s repertoire, all of which convince as the memorable country standards we are told they have become within the film. Bridges is an electric presence as Blake on stage, and a duet with Tommy Sweet at the film’s midway point is arguably the film’s highlight (I wanted to cheer at its conclusion as though I were at a real concert).

The second half of the film, which concerns Blake’s relationship with a young, single-mum called Jean (played by Maggie Gyllenhaal), is much less appealing as it pulls us away from the stage and into movie cliché territory. Jean castigates Blake at one point by saying that he’s let her down like every man has before, which made me cringe, whilst (potential spoiler) Blake easily overcomes his years of alcoholism within two scenes late in the film. ‘Crazy Heart’ also presents Jean as a typical Hollywood movie single mum, in that despite the fact she has a fairly low income job (as a local journalist) she owns a pretty nice house and has no problem juggling a career with providing for her son (in a way reminiscent of Rene Zellweger’s character in ‘Jerry Maguire’). Blake’s poverty is similarly non-existent as, despite the fact that he tells us early on that he has ten dollars to his name; he also seems to get along fairly comfortably. America, it seems, is a good place to be poor.



This lack of any social realist elements is perhaps the film’s main problem, as whilst Aronofsky’s ‘The Wrestler’ deals with many of the same themes and issues as ‘Crazy Heart’ (right down to the detail that both include a plot thread about an estranged father begging for redemption), it does so with a cynicism and a seedy, gritty edge, which is lacking here. One interesting scene cuts between Blake’s fairly simple abode and the glamorous home of his LA agent, as they speak on the telephone, but whilst the contrast raises interesting questions about Blake’s exploitation (again like ‘The Wrestler’) none of these are really answered.

In the end (major spoiler) Blake gets sober, writes a big song and makes a ton of money, with one of the films closing scenes featuring Blake in happy conversation with his agent, who it seems has the right idea about life: in ‘Crazy Heart’ Blake’s lack of success is his own fault and when he changes his outlook, he becomes free to set about living the American Dream which is (as always) purely financial. Mickey Rourke’s wrestler is spat out, exploited and abused by American society which lets him down just as much as his own messed-up personality. ‘Crazy Heart’ is the more palatable film for audiences, but it is arguably a less honest one for it.

In fairness, the first half of ‘Crazy Heart’ was one of the most enjoyable times I have had in a cinema this year so far. Whatever its flaws, the film boasts a great soundtrack, some stunning performances and has provided one of my favourite actors with a plethora of well-deserved awards. If you are a fan of Jeff Bridges or country music and want to watch a lighter, less socially conscious version of ‘The Wrestler’, then ‘Crazy Heart’ is the film for you!

'Crazy Heart' is still playing across the country and until this Thursday at the Duke of York's in Brighton. It is rated '15' by the BBFC.

'The Father of My Children' review: Film Un Certain Regard

This review may contain a SPOILER for those who don’t know the story on which this film is loosely based.

'The Father of My Children' is a new French drama by the promising young director Mia Hansen-Løve. The film won the Un Certain Regard award at last year’s Cannes Film Festival, which is (apparently) granted to "recognize young talent, and to encourage innovative and daring works by presenting one of the films with a grant to aid its distribution in France" (thank you Wikipedia). The film itself is loosely based on the life and tragic death by suicide of the producer Humbert Balsan, who, in his last years, struggled with depression and the threat of bankruptcy. Hansen- Løve was given her directoral break by Balsan and possibly due to this decides to tell his story at a respectful distance: all the specific details have been changed with this account being presented as completely fictional. Yet, to anyone who knows about Humbert Balsan, many figures and events from his life have obvious analogues here.

‘The Father of My Children’ is certainly an accomplished piece of work. The performance of Louis-Do de Lencquesaing as Grégoire (the producer and titular father) is everything it must be. Afterall, it is said (more than once) within the film that his character is charming and charismatic, which he certainly manages to be. He is also warm and funny in the scenes with his children (the eldest of which is played superbly and with real intensity and intelligence by his real life daughter Alice), and this is perhaps the most crucial part of the film. But he is also equally adept at getting across the sense of depression and desperation crucial to understanding the character's eventual suicide.

However, the real stars of this film are the two actresses who play Grégoire’s two younger daughters, Alice Gautier and Manelle Driss. These girls are really natural on screen and provide some really great comic moments as well as helping to ensure the film accurately captures the atmosphere of a family at play. My favourite scene involved these two staging a play in the living room for their parents (in that way little children do) which really captures a sense of pure joy. The film gets things like this absolutely right. Another scene I loved sees the eldest daughter (Alice de Lencquesaing) ordering a coffee in a cafe, only to get embarrassed by all the choices and revert to hot chocolate. It was a wonderful moment that seemed familiar to me, and also said a lot about the character as a girl on the verge of being a gown-up with choices to make and coffee to drink.



The film also manages to tell a story that often goes untold in cinema: that of the sympathetic producer who cares deeply about cinema and wants to make films of artistic worth. Unlike many on screen money men, Grégoire is not brash or calculating and instead we are placed in the position of feeling that his directors, who fail to work to budgets and ultimately cause him to face bankruptcy, are exploitative and often unsympathetic characters.

The pivotal sequence that leads up to Grégoire’s suicide is truly inspired, with the event itself serving as the film’s most poignant image and as a memorable visual highlight, as we see him shoot himself whilst walking away from the camera. As he drops to the floor unceremoniously it is clear that there is nothing romanticised about the act, which is desperate and futile. It is also interesting as it builds to this moment at about the half-way point and then the film re-centres itself around Grégoire’s grieving loved ones. Prior to the suicide Grégoire’s wife promises not to leave him in the tough times ahead and I was choked by the realisation that he in fact leaves her. She is forced to deal with the inevitable bankruptcy he couldn’t bear to face himself as well as a future without a husband and father to her children. But although we are shown the void his death has left in their lives, we also glimpse, in another warm and funny scene of family bonding which involves a black-out, how he is really missing out on his life with them.

If I have a strong criticism of ‘The Father of My Children’ than it is directed at the films cheap sounding musical score which becomes prominent in the film’s second half and sounds like something from a terrible TV movie. The film, at almost two hours, is also a little overlong, with too many scenes involving the future of the bankrupt production company when the human drama is the real draw here. It is also true that Louis-Do de Lencquesaing is so successful at being charismatic as Grégoire that the film misses him just as much as his on-screen family do during the second half.

Overall though, the film was touching, warm and poignant with great attention to detail with regards to its portrayal of a happy family. Something which is too-often cheesy and cliché in the cinema (for some reason the opening of ‘Commando’ (five minutes in) comes to mind here). It also manages to get underneath the skin of an interesting set of characters and takes a mature and considered look at the roots of suicidal depression as well as its ultimate selfishness and futility, and without being judgemental. I recommend this film and eagerly await the next feature from Mia Hansen-Løve.

'The Father of My Children' can be seen at the Duke of York's in Brighton until Thursday and is rated '12A' by the BBFC. You can also currenly catch Jeff Bridges in 'Crazy Heart', which I intend to see tomorrow before going up to London for the premiere of 'Kick Ass'.

'Shutter Island' review: After due consideration...

I usually review a film the same day as I watch it and I tend to form my opinions pretty quickly. But there was something about Martin Scorsese’s ‘Shutter Island’ (an adaptation of a popular Dennis Lehane novel and his fourth film in a row staring Leonardo Di Caprio) that made me want to take a couple of days out and gather my thoughts. Now that I have done that, I am able to write this review. However, I should probably start by talking about my initial feelings whilst watching the film, as to some extent they differ from my conclusions.

I should preface all my comments by saying that I happened to have four guys sitting in front of me at the cinema, and they kept talking throughout the film. They used their phones and when people asked them to stop making so much noise; they just got louder and louder. To make matters worse, the film was projected quite badly and was out of focus. These things definitely harmed my experience of ‘Shutter Island’, which started to drag in this atmosphere. However, the film must share some of the blame for my discomfort, as I was also disconnected from events by the director’s choices. I find some of Scorsese’s work to be heavy handed (the slow motion shot of a bible falling into water in ‘Gangs of New York’ has always stood out as an example of this in my mind). In ‘Shutter Island’ Scorsese overuses slow-motion and seems to be more interested in creating iconic cinematic images (worthy of an awards show spot, as in the clip above) than in servicing the story he is telling. I felt this most during the film’s many flashback and dream sequences, some of which slow the film down unnecessarily.

I was feeling this mixture of discomfort at my surroundings, irritation at some of the film’s style and boredom at its length, when I was snapped back into consciousness as the film reached its terrific final act and had me completely captivated. The final scenes are superbly executed and shed a new light on everything that has come before. Many reviewers have suggested that the plot is flimsy and that the plot twists are obvious, but I really never knew (and still don’t know) what to think about the truth on Shutter Island, which I can’t go into here. There is a pleasing ambiguity to much of the film and a real sense that everyone is supremely unreliable (including the filmmaker), more so than in any other film I can think of.

There is also a palpable sense of dread for much of the movie. The cast are generally pitch-perfect, with the possible exception of (the usually decent) Michelle Williams, who slips into horror movie cliche in her role as the protagonists deceased wife. Leonardo Di Caprio is perfect in the central role, injecting all the required intensity and hysteria into every scene, whilst Ben Kingsley is perfectly cast as the Asylum’s doctor. Robbie Robertson’s work as music supervisor also helps provide an atmosphere of foreboding, whilst early shots of the island, shown from the point of view of an approaching ferry, recall all the dread of arriving at Skull Island in ‘King Kong’.

The film is as much homage to Scorsese’s influences as anything Quentin Tarantino has directed, but with more sincerity. Many reviewers have noted that there are references to the films of Powell and Pressburger, Stanley Kubrick and Alfred Hitchcock, whilst the film also owes a sizeable debt to “guilty pleasure” cinema in the form of B movies. But whilst Tarantino’s invocation of the exploitation genre is knowing and almost kitsch, Scorsese manages to invoke a wide range of these “low-culture” movies, whilst still making his movie in complete earnest.

Overall, my current feeling on ‘Shutter Island’ is that it is a very decent film which does a really good job of leading the viewer into questioning the nature of memory and reality. It is often heavy handed and probably overlong, but the more I think about it the more I am convinced that it is an interesting piece of work about madness and the threat of violence from a director whose best work specialises in that subject matter. Whilst it is always tempting to take a recent film from a “great” filmmaker in their twilight years and dismiss it as “minor” work, I feel ‘Shutter Island’ may yet become a key film in the Scorsese canon.

I know am sure my appreciation for the film will grow on subsequent viewings (especially when I can watch it in a more comfortable environment) and I can’t wait until I get to see it again. I will certainly post here when I have done so, should my feelings on the film change. Perhaps it is ultimately fitting that my opinion of this film seems to be changing over time, with my opinion on it about it about as certain as its protagonists fragile grip on reality.

'Shutter Island' is still playing nationwide and is rated '15' by the BBFC. For an almost opposite view to mine, head over to Wrapped in Brown Paper.

'Alice in Wonderland' review: Of with its head!

I would consider myself a Tim Burton fan. Not a massive fan, as he’s made a few films I’m not so keen on, such as the ‘Planet of the Apes’ re-make, ‘Charlie and the Chocolate Factory’ and ‘Corpse Bride’. But he has also made some films that should be considered classic modern fairytales, such as ‘Beetlejuice’, ‘Edward Scissorhands’ and ‘Big Fish’. He is often dismissively referred to as a visual director, but I take issue with this criticism on two levels. The first is that film is a visual medium, and a director like Burton (or Terry Gilliam, or Guillermo Del Toro), who has a unique visual style and paints with ambition and on a large canvass, should be regarded more highly than they perhaps are. The second is that I usually feel Burton’s visual style is carefully considered and becomes part of the characterisation and emotion of the film. The set direction is part of the acting in Burton. For example, Selina Kyle’s apartment in ‘Batman Returns’ was specially designed to seem claustrophobic and restrictive, which was chosen, to reflect something about the character – and not simply because Burton is obsessed with the visual at the expense of the story.

However, I would agree that Tim Burton has not been at his best this past decade. Whilst his last film, ‘Sweeney Todd’, was by all accounts a sound screen adaptation of the source material, the rest of his output over the last ten years (with the exception of ‘Big Fish’) has been a shadow of his former glory, with most of his time being spent as a hired gun on a number of big studio projects. You could be forgiven for thinking that the interesting director of those early works had disappeared. Unfortunately, this decline has not been halted by his latest film, ‘Alice in Wonderland’, a sort of sequel to Lewis Carroll’s original tale (and possibly to the 1951 animation by Burton’s paymasters at Disney who produced this film).

What little of a plot there is a riddled with holes that I probably shouldn’t go into here (especially with regards to the film’s final act) and many of the action scenes feel shoehorned in and fail to excite in any way (well the film is in 3D, and I’m discovering that 3D loves chases!). The story concerns a young-adult version of Alice, portrayed by the interesting and engaging Mia Wasikowska, who is possibly the only positive thing in this mess of a film. Alice stumbles back into Wonderland (or Underland, as we are told it is really called) whilst trying to avoid making a crucial decision about her future. Once there, Alice again meets, and fails to remember, all the familiar characters from the original tale, among them the Cheshire Cat (Stephen Fry), Tweedledum and Tweedledee (Matt Lucas) and the Mad Hatter, portrayed by Johnny Deep at his most excruciating.

Since his star-making turn in ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’, this once interesting and versatile actor has become a self-parody and seems to restrict himself to increasingly miss-judged and wilfully bizarre character roles. Whilst he could once be justly considered an impressive emerging actor, he is now just an over actor, and his formerly fruitful partnership with Burton, which has seen him take some of his career best roles (in ‘Edward Scissorhands’, ‘Ed Wood’ and ‘Sleepy Hollow’), has now become a tiresome and predictable bore, with this latest performance being reminiscent of his turn as Willy Wonka in 2005s ‘Charlie and the Chocolate Factory’.

Depp’s star power sees the Mad Hatter rise to an undue prominence in this telling of the story this time around and even sees him becoming an unlikely and uncomfortable love interest for Alice. He also switches from a slightly fey, camp accent, to a Scottish one, seemingly at random, throughout the film to my extreme irritation. To make matters worse he breaks into some kind of terrible dance at the films climax, which reminded me of the mid-battle wedding performed in the last ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ film, in that it was another moment where my jaw dropped and I was forced to ask the question “has this film just gotten worse?”. Helena Bonham Carter, who probably gave her best performance for her husband in ‘Sweeney Todd’, is as perplexing as she is embarrassing in ‘Alice’, as she blatantly steals Miranda Richardson’s “Queenie” character from the second series of TVs ‘Blackadder’ to distracting and unsettling effect. It is all as terrible as it sounds, I promise you.

The films main problem lies in its complete lack of engagement with the audience. It is extremely boring and a packed cinema didn’t laugh more than twice during the entire film. I suspect its record opening grosses will not lead to potential “highest grossing ever” figures, as poor word of mouth should sink this film after the first few weeks of business. Maybe this is part of Disney’s thought process behind trying to cut short its time in cinemas and hurry it onto DVD. Probably not, but it should be the reason. I wanted to leave with scarcely half an hour gone and I know I wasn’t the only one (as my girlfriend confirmed for me afterwards).

In Jan Švankmajer's 1988 part stop-frame animated version of the tale (video clip below) the characters and the setting are given an unsettling and dark edge which Burton, freed of the Disney brief, may well have sought to replicate (especially as he has often decried to the Disney original for lacking that same edge). However, the version we have been given in this latest adaptation has no weight to it, with its CGI characters and locations looking like so much visual bubblegum and lacking all required grandeur and wonder. Terry Gilliam had the same problem last year with ‘The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus’, which lacked the usual visceral quality of his work in its imagination sequences, and so Wonderland has the same problem here in terms of tangibility. The tone and feel of the movie is not dissimilar to some beloved 1980s family adventures, like ‘Labyrinth’ and ‘The Dark Crystal’, but without that visceral (almost dirty) quality, and without any charm, it is perhaps not destined to find the same cult audience. It is also the case that 3D, which has worked so well for ‘Up’ and ‘Avatar’, has not been kind of ‘Alice’, which adds an unpleasant eye-strain to the crushing boredom.

Worst of all, none of Carroll’s trademark wit and wordplay is evident in Burton’s ‘Alice in Wonderland’, which is an especially great shame, as that is clearly the highlight of the original stories. It seems that when Burton starts re-imaging older properties, such as Wonka, ‘Planet of the Apes’ and this ‘Alice’ film, he invariably diminishes them. I very much hope his next film is smaller in scale and harkens back to his earlier days, when he seemed like a relevant (possibly even great) filmmaker. For now we can only sit back and mourn his artistic decline, whilst he and Disney laugh all the way to the bank.




'Alice in Wonderland' is playing at multiplexes throughout the UK (despite weeks of grandstanding) and is rated 'PG' by the BBFC. If you want to hand Disney some money, check out 'The Princess and the Frog' which is far better.

'The Princess and the Frog' review:The triumphant return of the Disney animated musical

Not since 2004’s ‘Home on the Range’ has Disney theatrically released a traditional, hand-drawn animated film. You have to go even further back, to 1998’s ‘Mulan’, to find the last musical entry into the Disney “animated classic” canon. Recent years have seen Disney make their own, in-house computer animated films, with mixed results. These have included average films like ‘Chicken Little’ and ‘Meet the Robinsons’, as well as really awful films like ‘The Wild’ and last year’s ‘Bolt’. None of these have been able to match Pixar’s animations in terms of quality or box-office success and they have seen the studio, which of course pioneered the feature-length, animated motion picture, lose their position as the market leader for the first time in their history. As a fan of the classic Disney of yesteryear, and of animation in general, I take great pleasure in welcoming the old Disney back with the hand-drawn, animated, musical ‘The Princess and the Frog’.

‘The Princess and the Frog’ is directed by two heroes of renaissance-era Disney: Ron Clements and John Musker. These co-directors were key figures in a major reversal of fortunes for the Mouse House in the 1990s, with such films as ‘The Little Mermaid’, ‘Aladdin’ and ‘Hercules’. However, they also directed a film that would ultimately contribute to Disney abandoning hand-drawn animation: 2002s ‘Treasure Planet’, which failed to recoup its massive production budget and became a notorious flop. Happily, ‘The Princess and the Frog’ is closer to the folksy charm of those earlier films, than it is to the miss-judged, high-octane antics of that more recent, CG-heavy film.

Like many of the oldest Disney classics (‘Snow White’, ‘Sleeping Beauty’, ‘Cinderella’), ‘The Princess and the Frog’ is based on an old, European fairytale (The Frog Prince), which in this case finds itself relocated to New Orleans, probably in 1913 (judging by a newspaper declaring that Woodrow Wilson has been elected President), with a hint of ‘The Wizard of Oz’ about it in its depiction of a band of characters on missions of personal fulfilment. Much has been made of its lead character, Tiana, being the first African-American “Disney Princess”, with some commentators finding the film racist, whilst others have accused it of cashing in on fashionable African-American culture. In this area, Disney are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Make Tiana and her family too well-to-do and you’ve ignored centuries of black history, whilst making Tiana poorer than the average Disney “Princess” and you can be accused of reinforcing negative stereotypes. Understandably, Disney have choson to try placing the black characters somewhere between the two extremes, and for my money they have carried this off rather well.

The house in which Tiana’s family live is not squalid or impoverished, yet it is also markedly smaller than that of the wealthy white family for whom Tiana’s mother works as a seamstress. As Tiana and her mother leave that extravagant setting, they walk almost mournfully into the shadows, as the wealthy, white father showers his spoilt daughter with gifts. It is true that there is no obvious sign of racial tension, but the disparity of wealth is not ignored. It may have been sugar-coated, but this is a children’s fairytale and not social-realist drama, after all. My point is, the film does not ignore racial issues altogether.

In fact, some lines exist which do reference Tiana’s ethnic background, such as in the moment where the white realtors (who are denying her a property) tell Tiana that someone of her “background” might be better off staying where she is. There is also a playful line in one of Randy Newman’s excellent songs (and Newman has a history of lyrics which discuss racism, such as 'Rednecks' or 'Sail Away') in which the black voodoo villain, Dr. Facilier (pictured below), asks a white character whether he has a soul (an obvious reference to that black music in inherently soulful). Tiana is also demonstrated to be the hardest working Disney Princess, working two jobs, to save towards her dream of owning her own restaurant, she doesn’t have it easy, but at the same time, there is no explicit reference to underlying social-economic problems. In other words: ‘The Princess and the Frog’ doesn’t ignore social problems, even if it (understandably) chooses not to make a feature of them.



As mentioned, Randy Newman (a frequent Pixar collaborator with scores for ‘Toy Story’ and ‘Cars’) provides some excellent Jazzy songs into the mix, creating a delightful atmosphere reminiscent of ‘The Aristocats’ – a personal favourite of mine – rather than the Broadway-style popular songs that characterised the Ashmen/Menkin era. The fine music compliments the beautiful animation, influenced by the Disney films of the 1950s-era, specifically the look of ‘The Lady and the Tramp’, an influence which is felt most in the films depiction of New Orleans at night. The animation of all the characters (especially the male frog) is superb and performed with a charm and refreshing subtlety. The film also reminded me of Brad Bird’s superior 1999 Warner Bros animation, ‘The Iron Giant’, in the way it discloses the passing of Tiana’s father through the subtle detail of a bedside photo featuring him in military uniform (in Bird’s film you can suppose the father has fallen in Korea, whilst here it seems more likely that the father has been killed during the First World War – another nod in the direction of racial/social politics, as Tiana’s poor, black father is killed, whilst her friends wealthy white father is still very much alive).

There are some awkward moments, as I felt uncomfortable hearing Tiana’s father sermonise about the value of effort and hard work in achieving success (especially as we are told he works triple shifts whilst never achieving his dream), but whilst the film is a little too “American Dreamy” for my tastes, it is ultimately hard to fault the moral: that you have to work hard if you want to fulfil your dreams. In live-action, maybe I would dismiss this movie the way I have dismissed the last few Will Smith vehicles, about upwardly mobile, hardworking believers in the American way of life. But as a handsome 2D animation, with a fantastic score and a delightful cast of characters - who exist on just the right side of “wacky” – ‘The Princess and the Frog’ is a charming and essential new Disney film, and the studios best since ‘Lilo & Stitch’.

'The Princess and the Frog' is rated 'U' by the BBFC and can still be seen in cinema's nationwide, although it must be nearing the end of it's run. Watch this clip, that I'm not allowed to embed, to get a taste of the film. See it whilst you still can. The same goes for the equally terrific 'Ponyo'. If you are interested, below is a 2007 Goofy short Disney made in order to test paperless 2D animation techniques used to make 'The Princess and the Frog'.

'Exit Through the Gift Shop' review: A Wanksy Film (see what I did there!)

I won’t detail my feelings on the “urban artist” Banksy here, due to the fact that they are basically the same as those voiced (in a much funnier way) by Charlie Brooker about four years ago in his Guardian column. I will say that, for me, Banksy is perhaps the ultimate example of the contemporary culture as he exists in a state of ironic detachment, always unaccountable and with an emphasis on style, not simply over, but instead of substance. Banksy is also, paradoxically, famous for being anonymous (an anonymity which he has arguably sort to maintain in order to attract more publicity and greater renown to his art).

Therefore, it came as no surprise watching a documentary titled ‘Exit Through the Gift Shop’, billed as “A Banksy Film”, to find a something so intent on being enigmatic, that it is in fact just totally narcissistic (Rhys Ifans narration frequently goes to great lengths to tell us just how vital Bansky is to modern culture). The notion of “A Banksy Film” is also a purposefully vague description as no director has been credited, either in the credits, or on the film’s IMDB entry. Is this satirical comment on the redundancy of auteur theory, or merely a post-modern pose? I suspect the latter, but then am I now falling into a trap by taking this film seriously? The level of detached insincerity on show, for me, constitutes the films major problem, whilst for others it will no doubt be the films crowning achievement.

The "story" is as follows: We learn early on, in a comic twist, that this is not going to be a film about Bansky. Rather we are given a look at an artless pretender to Bansky’s throne as ‘Exit Through the Gift Shop’ is, (at face value) a documentary chronicling the life and times of Thierry Guetta, a man (who we are told) is obsessed with recording every second of his life on camera. Thierry, from the outset something of a comic figure, somehow bumbles his way into being an insider on the urban art scene, where he eventually meets and befriends Bansky, before becoming an artist in his own right, under the pseudonym “Mr. Brainwash”. How seriously you take any of that is really up to you.

It seems convenient to me that everything "Mr. Brainwash" comes to represent in the film is thrown into stark contrast with the films version of Bansky: "Mr. Brainwash" is all about the money, whereas Bansky (if the mysterious hooded figure even is Bansky) tells us his art is not about money; "Mr. Brainwash" is an overnight sensation, whereas Bansky tells us that he spent years finding his style and perfecting his craft. Essentially the film seems to be telling us one thing: "Mr. Brainwash" is a sell-out and Banksy is not. The whole exercise seems cooked up to legitimise and further mythologize the Banksy business (and it is a business, whatever he says, with this film adding to the books and the Blur album cover). A great deal of time and effort is spent presenting Bansky as the genuine article alongside the delusional, faker that is Thierry Guetta.

However ‘Exit’ is frequently a funny and entertaining film if you are prepared to see it not as a documentary, but as this year’s ‘Le Donk’ or ‘Spinal Tap’. Afterall, the character of Thierry Guetta ticks all the classic mocumentary character boxes, the most obvious one being his lack of self-awareness. He says preposterous things with the appearance complete earnestness. When he begins to market himself as a street artist, it is with the delusions of grandeur common within that comic genre. Of course, reading it as a straight up comedy finds it lacking a little in the laughs department, but it is far more effective as a comedy than as a documentary: containing laughs but no solid documentary data, or even an accountable point of view.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film was its lampooning of art culture. In many scenes, those who think they are in the know demonstrate the vapidity and the falseness of modern art consumption by so-called experts (basically posers). ‘Exit’ shows similar people at Bansky’s own LA exhibition (which boasts celebrity fans and mass-media coverage) to the people it later ridicules at the "Mr. Brainwash" exhibit, prompting the film’s most interesting question: Is Bansky taking a pop at his own fame and his place within the art establishment? Is he bringing down the whole deck of cards with this film (if indeed it is even ‘his’ film)? But to read any of this into ‘Exit Through the Gift Shop’ may just be playing Banksy’s game. I feel that the truth is that the film, like Bansky’s art, says nothing but that which cultural commentators ascribe it. Maybe as an exercise that sort of thing is fine and valid, but it doesn’t work for me. I feel that for me to analyse this thing too hard is to in some way validate it. And I don’t want to do that because it’s a load of (quite entertaining) toss. Maybe I just don't get it, and he's a genius. But I doubt it.

'Exit Through the Gift Shop' is rated '15' by the BBFC and is currently playing at the Duke of York's Picturehouse in Brighton. Read my Splendor Podcast co-hosts impressions of the film from the Berlin film festival here, whilst another colleague looked at the film way back at Sundance. What glamorous lives they lead...

'Capitalism: A Love Story' Review: Michael Moore takes aim at the banks

There is a tendency in documentary criticism to laud the films which seem most honest and objective, the films which seem to show you the “truth” of a place or a person, seemingly from a distance, unedited and without judgement. Of course, this is always an illusion, as all film is manipulative to lesser and greater degrees, but films like last year’s mesmerising ‘Sleep Furiously’ do their level best to seem as though you have just been taken to a place and are having a nose around. The same cannot be said of the Michael Moore documentaries (which include ‘Roger & Me’, ‘Bowling for Columbine’, ‘Fahrenheit 911’ and ‘Sicko’), which clearly present a subjective argument and a point of view. This sort of documentary is usually more polarising and less well received, so it goes.

Over time I had allowed naysayers to lead me to doubt whether I had ever liked Michael Moore in the first place. I had seen (and enjoyed) his movies, but the popular feeling amongst my peers seemed to be that he was merely populist, simplistic and brash. There seems to be an embarrassment about Michael Moore, especially from people who share his politics but don’t like him as their spokesperson. It was with this feeling that I went into ‘Capitalism: A Love Story’, expecting to find fault with it. However, it completely sold me on Moore all over again.

‘Capitalism’ is at its strongest when it plays it straight, with most of the comedy falling a little flat, notably in one scene where a Bush speech is given a zany, animated background which just distracts from what is being said (maybe it is intended as a clever device to show literally how we are being distracted by fear... but I doubt it). However, to his credit Moore decides to play it straight most of the time with this film and with quite excellent results. Archive footage of FDR speaking about a planned “second bill of rights” is played in full without any voice-over or music, and is quite something when seen projected in a cinema. Likewise, statistical data is always presented entertainingly, yet delivered earnestly and with clear passion, which is refreshing to see in our increasingly apathetic culture.



The weakest element with ‘Capitalism’ is a familiar one from across the entire Moore filmography, as he has a tendency to allow his films to become quite mawkish. My favourite example of this is in ‘Bowling for Columbine’, as Moore feigns upset and indignation at Charlton Heston’s LA home, demanding he look at a picture of a young girl killed by a gun and *touchingly* placing said picture on the steps of Heston’s house so the camera can find just the right level of poignancy. In this latest film, Moore does seem to linger a little too long on weeping family members being evicted and in one ill-advised scene tells a window that her husband is referred to as a “dead peasant” in a legal document (what is the point here? It is obvious that the term is insulting when we first hear and we gain nothing from making a widow cry about it). Yet, despite a few such moments, ‘Capitalism’ is easily the least mawkish Moore has been and is therefore his most likeable and effective film to date.

However, to focus on this criticism of Moore, is really to sell the film short. There are so many bits where it completely works, and entertains whilst being really informative and persuasive. For example, the documents that Moore highlights relating to a corporate life-insurance scheme (relating to the aforementioned “dead peasants”) are astounding, as is the leaked memo from one giant corporation, which openly speaks of the US as a “plutonomy”, a nation controlled by the wealthy for the benefit of the wealthy (and suggests how to keep it that way). There is also a fantastic sequence that links the rise of Reagan to product placement and advertising, and suggests he was brought in (and controlled) by Wall Street after Jimmy Carter went off-message in regards to consumer culture. I’m sure there are a great many who would contest this theory, and I’m sure the truth is less simplistic, but Moore makes a really compelling case for his argument here. It is also a particular joy to see Moore take the two of the biggest tools in justifying the status quo in American politics – Christianity and patriotism – and to turn them against capitalism, interviewing a Bishop who sees capitalism as a sin, and looking at the constitution to show how un-American capitalism really is, and how the document seems socialist.

It is great to see a film like ‘Sleep Furiously’ (one of my favourite films of last year) and to be given an objective, patient and mannered look at a time and place. But it is equally good to see something this argumentative, which is clearly passionately engaged with its subject. I left the cinema feeling invigorated, feeling I should be more politically active (as with age the apathy has already slowly started to set in) and that must be a good thing. ‘Capitalism’ is a fiery essay, delivered by a master propagandist and manipulator, but it is never less than compelling and exciting, and is a skilful piece of documentary filmmaking. Even if you come away unconvinced or even angered by Moore’s opinions, I for one am very glad he is airing them in this way. Especially on this subject which usually goes un-discussed, yet has such total and invisible control over our everyday lives. The fact that Moore can turn this discussion into populist entertainment is his unique gift and I for one applaud him for it.

'Capitalism: A Love Story' is rated '12a' by the BBFC and can be seen at the Duke of York's Picturehouse in Brighton everyday up to Thursday the 4th of March.

'Micmacs' Review: The best film I saw last year...

In the first edition of the Splendor Cinema podcast Jon and I discussed out favourite movies of 2009. Missing from my list was a film I considered one of the very best and most enjoyable of the year, but as the film in question was not then on general release in the UK, I opted to consider it a film of 2010 and exclude it from my thinking for the time being. However, as of the 26th of February, Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s ‘Micmacs’ is officially showing nationwide in UK cinemas, and the time is therefore right to post my appraisal of it here.

As previously mentioned, ‘Micmacs’ is the new film by the director of ‘Amélie’ Jean-Pierre Jeunet, and is his first film since 2004’s ‘A Very Long Engagement’. The story concerns a man named Bazil (Dany Boon) who finds himself the innocent victim of gangland violence on the streets of Paris - taking a gunshot wound to the head. Luckily Bazil survives the wound (albeit with the bullet permanently lodged in his brain) and befriends a gang of social misfits: featuring the usual array of quirky oddballs and cheerful grotesques, with parts for Jeunet regulars Dominique Pinon and Yolande Moreau. Together they conspire to bring down two international arms dealers, each guilty in their own way for crimes against both Bazil and the world in which he lives. It’s a darkly comic farce, with elements of social satire, not just of the arms trade and of corporations, but also broadly of Sarkozy-era France.

Of course the success of ‘Amélie’ can be attributed (for a large part) to the star-making central performance of Audrey Tautou in the title role, whose effervescent screen presence captivated audiences. But if Tautou was crucial to the success of that film, Dany Boon is equally crucial here. Boon (apparently already a huge comedy star in France) is quite brilliant, especially in one scene which requires him to convince an onlooker that he has entered a car – in what is surly a direct homage to a piece of Chaplin business seen in ‘City Lights’. Boon proves at moments like this that he is a naturally gifted silent comedian, and that if the sort of films made by Buster Keaton or Harold Lloyd were still being made today, then Boon would be a huge international star. It also helps that matters that Boon is ably supported by a host of talented character actors who each pull off their own peculiar part with considerable skill.



Whilst I would usually try to steer clear of making simplistic “if you like ‘Three Amigos’, you’ll LOVE ‘Tropic Thunder’” type comments, I do think it’s probably quite accurate to say from the off that if you are one of those who didn’t get swept up in the whimsical charms of ‘Amélie’, then I would suggest you will not find much more to enjoy in ‘Micmacs’. If you hated that film's sensibilities (as a great many seem to do) then I don’t think this is the film for you. Conversely, I think fans of that film will find much to recommend about ‘Micmacs’, as it has the same oddball sensibility, along with many of Jeunet’s familiar visual motifs and thematic preoccupations.

Whilst I can see how the hyper-stylised world of the Jeunet film will not be to everyone’s taste, I found ‘Micmacs’ consistently entertaining. It was frequently funny, in parts touching and never less than beautiful to look at. Furthermore, it always has its heart exactly in the right place. And what more can you ask of a film than that?

'Micmacs' (rated '12A' by the BBFC) is now on general release across the UK, and is playing all week at the Duke of York's in Brighton. Also, on the subject of the long running 'Alice' boycott saga, the Odeon have relented to Disney's terms, a full look at which can be found here.