'Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale' review:

There is something Spielbergian about Finnish horror-comedy 'Rare Exports'. The fact that the action surrounds a mountain brings to mind 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind', whilst the film's child protagonist Pietari (Onni Tommila) is reminiscent of the child from... well just about every family movie the director has ever made. However, the films that it most resembles from the Spielberg stable are not those he directed, but those anarchic and violent family films he produced in the mid-80s: 'The Goonies' and 'Gremlins'.

As with 'Gremlins', in the UK 'Rare Exports' has been hit with a '15' certificate. Which is a shame because, although there is a little swearing (though not as much as the apparently kiddy-friendly 'The King's Speech' which got a '12A'), some violence and some nudity, 'Rare Exports' is essentially a children's story. It is a coming of age tale which sees Pietari making the gradual change from a scared boy to a young man. It has a dark aesthetic and a macabre sense of humour, but nothing that would be out of place in the world of those Spielberg films mentioned. Like the title suggests, it is also a rare phenomenon: a good Christmas movie.



'Rare Exports' is the first feature film by Jalmari Helander, who has expanded on an idea which he first gave life to in a couple of short films: 'Rare Exports Inc.' (2003) and 'Rare Exports: The Official Safety Instructions' (2005). The film is a sort of prequel to those shorts, which took a comical look at how hunters in Lapland track down and capture wild and dangerous Father Christmases in order to train them for safe export around the world. Many of the original cast return for the feature, which shows how they originally discover the homicidal, rampaging Santas after they are unearthed from an icy tomb deep within the Korvatunturi mountains by a team of American archaeologists.

As with the short films, Santa Claus murders whoever he suspects is naughty. He also, in a twisted re-imagining of the folklore, eats little children - a fact which young Pietari learns from some old books and which terrifies him into taking precautions, including fashioning his distinctive suit of padded armour. When the boys and girls of the village go missing, it is up to the boy and his father, a reindeer hunter, to rescue them. There is a father-son subplot at work here, but unlike that in 'Tron: Legacy', it feels like more than a functionary narrative device. The relationship between Pietari and his father (Rauno played by Jorma Tommila) is in many ways the film's real focal point, with two thirds of 'Rare Exports' focusing on the way they interact with one another and featuring very little action. What action there is takes place in the final twenty minutes and is brilliantly exciting and funny.



'Rare Exports' has been likened to the early work of Tim Burton and it isn't difficult to see why with the film feeling like a dark, contemporary fable in a similar vein to 'Edward Scissorhands'. In the illustrations of ancient Santas devouring children, it is also possible to detect traces of Guillermo del Toro's 'Pan's Labyrinth'. Yet Helander's preference for humour which combines the sinister and the silly is more like something out of a Roald Dahl book. In fact the dishevelled Santas themselves, rake thin and with unkempt beards, look like Quentin Blake illustrations come to life.

The concept of these wild 90 year-old men running around the woods ripping people to shreds is the stuff of black comedy in itself but Helander adds to this some brilliantly funny ideas which help to elevate 'Rare Exports' above being another exploitative horror-comedy: Santas can be distracted by feeding them freshly baked ginger bread cookies; among the things they consider naughty (as well as the likes of smoking, drinking and swearing) is people who haven't washed behind their ears; and in order to ward off Santa, Pietari sellotapes and then staples shut the penultimate door on his advent calender. There are loads of other great ideas which I won't spoil here and also some very funny lines of faux action movie dialogue.



'Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale' is practically begging to become a cult seasonal favourite. If it were Spielberg produced and directed by Joe Dante then it would probably have already found that audience - one that might, sadly, be excluded by the film's being in the Finnish language (notoriously one of Europe's least widely spoken and least accessible tongues). It will also be limited by the fact that some of its content (which includes matter of fact nudity as a Santa takes a shower) will prevent children from being able to see it in more conservative countries like the UK, which is a pity.

It's admittedly not a film for very young children, but it certainly has more appeal for the under-15 crowd than 'The King's Speech' and is arguably less violent than a lot of recent "tweenage" blockbusters which boast lower age ratings. And whilst the likes of Michael Bay's 'Transformers' series objectify women and indulge in horrible racial stereotyping for a '12A' audience, 'Rare Exports' is actually a pretty savoury story about a young Finnish boy growing up, abandoning his tattered teddy bear and proving that he has more courage than his bullying peers. What's wrong with that? Don't bother to ask the increasingly inconsistant likes of the BBFC.

'Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale' is out now in the UK and playing at the Duke of Yoir's Picturehouse in Brighton. It is rated '15' by the BBFC.

'Tron: Legacy' review:

It seems that 2010 is the year when Hollywood decided all 1980s entertainment properties needed to be re-tooled for the modern age. We've already had 'The A-Team', 'Clash of the Titans', 'Predators' and 'Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps'. We also got Sylvester Stallone's nostalgia reliant, berk-fest 'The Expendables'. Now it seems it's Disney's turn with 'Tron: Legacy', a sequel to the 1982 movie 'Tron' which explored, using then pioneering computer effects, what happens when you zap Jeff Bridges into an arcade game.

Whilst the original now has a certain campy charm, with its fluorescent world of all-in-one jumpsuits, it certainly isn't "cool" in a conventional sense (if you're in doubt, see YouTube phenomenon "Tron Guy"). By comparison, this sequel has re-imagined "The Grid" (the world inside the computer) with the aesthetic of an especially chic, modern car ad. Like the swanky flat of a Soho trendy, it's a world characterised by clean, minimalist designs and set to a pulsing Daft Punk soundtrack. Watching 'Tron: Legacy' is like spending two hours in an exclusive night club, only here your headache comes as a result of RealD 3D glasses and not as a result of too many blue After Shocks (though if 'Tron: Legacy' were a drink, you suspect that would be it).

Fittingly for a sequel that's 28 years late, 'Tron: Legacy' picks up some years after where the original left off. Jeff Bridges' game designer and arcade owner Kevin Flynn ended that film as head of ENCOM, the shady company that had stolen his computer programs. Apparently between the two movies Flynn fathered a son, this film's protagonist Sam Flynn (Garrett Hedlund), and promptly disappeared leaving Flynn the younger desperately in need of a father - a role filled by Alan Bradley, his business partner and designer of "Tron" (an independent program and hero of The Grid).

Bradley is again played by Bruce Boxleitner who, with his distinguished grey hair and glasses, resembles a sort of budget Richard Gere. 'Tron: Legacy' begins with an aimless Sam Flynn pulling a juvenile prank on the board of ENCOM (now re-cast as a sinister analogue of Microsoft) after which he is visited by Bradley who, after giving a half-hearted ticking off, tells Sam that he has received a mysterious message on his pager, apparently from Sam's father. After this revelation, Sam is persuaded to visit his father's old arcade, where he finds a hidden room which teleports him onto The Grid via a laser beam.



Once there Sam is promptly undressed and more appropriately attired by what look like a gang of automated perfume counter saleswomen. (Wearing vaguely exploitative sci-fi clothing and ridiculous high-heels, the women are literally objectified as they walk out of sockets in the walls to cater to Sam's needs.) He doesn't know it, but he has been prepared for "games": iconic events directly lifted from the original film and then improved infinitely by current computer effects (as well as this new film's sexed-up styling).

The discus throwing duels now take place in a glass box, suspended in the air and ever diminishing in size as the flying discs smash it to bits. The computer world's liberal grasp of physics means that the duels are enhanced further as fighters are able to run around the walls and across the ceiling as they smash things up. The discs themselves are now not only thrown but also used in hand-to-hand combat and the defeated combatant no longer turns into a cosy beam of yellow light but crumbles into thousands of tiny pixels, in the film's most eye-catching effect. Likewise the "Light Cycles" of the original have been given the Tron 2.0 treatment, now operating in a multi-tiered, translucent arena, with riders now combining the ultra-sleek future bikes with their discus. The result of these changes is set pieces that easily surpass anything seen in the original. Though sadly they are few in number.

Although the original film was considered something of a flop back in its day, Disney have clearly pitched this film to a young audience seeing this sequel as a fully-fledged franchise re-boot with the ambitious cross-promotional platform for the movie including a video game, an animated series and, of course, the Daft Punk composed soundtrack album. But whilst "the kids" will want to see Sam to smash people into little blue bits with his discus and ride around in a cool, neon motorbike, what they will actually see is a few imaginative and high-octane action sequences buried amongst drawn-out scenes of plot exposition, flashbacks and parent-child angst as Sam catches up with his aged father.

Kevin Flynn, it transpires, has been trapped within the program since his sudden disappearance all those years ago and the role is reprised by Jeff Bridges. There is, naturally, a romantic sub-plot for young Sam which springs from nowhere in particular, as Quorra (Olivia Wilde) emerges as our hero's capable companion. Though whilst Wilde is fun to watch and delivers her lines with a disarming playfulness, in truth she is given little to do. Also underused is Jeff Bridges himself, with Kevin Flynn's Grid-bending powers (as seen in the first film) used far too sparingly.



Bridges appears as two characters in 'Tron: Legacy'. He is of course Flynn the elder, who has become more like "The Dude" of 'The Big Lebowski' since we last saw him (he now ends most sentences with the word "man" and at one point exclaims "radical!"). But he is also CLU - a program version of himself that he created to oversee The Grid in his absence and the film's villain. CLU is a CG motion captured version of Bridges, meant to closely resemble his appearance in the original film. It is a bold move to use CGI to animate a human character in a live action film, where he must appear alongside actual people, and the film almost pulls it off. Yet you can't help feeling that he's rolled into town on the Polar Express and doesn't belong. There is something not quite right about it. It doesn't help that the first time we see this effect, it is used to portray the real, younger Kevin Flynn interacting with his son outside of the computer world. Though it is unquestionably state of the art for now and the idea itself - of the young and old Bridges facing off onscreen together - is compelling enough for Disney to have taken the gamble. I'll say this for it: the more you see the effect the less weird it seems until by the end of the film you've accepted the whole thing.

The story itself is logical for this follow-up and serviceable, if nothing new, but the dialogue is below average. It's one of those scripts that consists only of clichés and exposition. "What is it like... the sun?" asks Quorra at one stage. "It's warm, it's radiant..." replies Sam before looking her deep in the eyes and adding "... it's beautiful." "Tron! What have you become!?" shouts Kevin Flynn during one encounter with his old cyber-buddy, now in the services of CLU. This poor writing could be forgiven. I didn't go into 'Tron: Legacy' expecting an Aaron Sorkin screenplay, after all. But 'Tron: Legacy', the maiden effort of director Joseph Kosinski (until now best known for video game commercials), forgets to be escapist fun for much of its length and bad dialogue is left to provide most the laughs.

You certainly won't get laughs from the one sequence in the film intended to be purely comic, which falls embarrassingly flat as Michael Sheen (no stranger to camping it up) makes an appearance as an effete nightclub owner in one horrible car crash of a scene. He plays air guitar with his cane, dances about and shouts ridiculous things throughout one fight, seemingly on a one-man quest to ruin the entire film. I hope it was worth it Sheen (though I guess it's at least a step up from 'Underworld: Rise of the Lycans' and 'Twilight: New Moon'). Thankfully, Jeff Bridges does manage to come out of things with his credibility in tact. Especially when he sees his son for the first time in years, as he delivers his lines with almost tear-inducing sincerity above and beyond the writing.



'Tron: Legacy' has the distinction of being the first film since 'Avatar' to use that film's high-end 3D cameras - with every other major 3D release of 2010 subject to a controversial post-production conversion process. As a result the 3D is better than that seen in the likes of Disney's own 'Alice in Wonderland' and seems to suffer less from motion blur than any other live action 3D film I've seen. Perhaps this also has something to do with the less busy visual design of the Tron world, which may have been designed as much with 3D in mind as anything else.

Though for all the polish, as with every other 3D movie I've ever seen, I forgot it was in 3D after twenty minutes of watching and its most positive attribute was that it was subtle and unobtrusive in its use of the extra dimension. All of those words of faint praise lead to the obvious question: "what was the point of it all then?" (aside from the bump in ticket prices and security against piracy).

Unlike some of those other denizens of 1980s popular culture recently thrust into renewed relevance, 'Tron: Legacy' is a sequel nobody asked for, to a film that I suspect nobody below the age of twenty-five even remembers. With a week to go before its release I find it hard to imagine that it can be anything like the hit that Disney needs it to be in order to consider it a success. Who exactly is it for? It's too slow (and possibly too complicated) for young children, whilst it's a little too juvenile for adults. It looks and sounds excellent and it would not be any kind of scandal if it picked up a few technical awards in the new year. Plus there are two or three genuinely awe-inspiring set pieces and some really imaginative touches here and there.

But the central problem is that the world of Tron, which must have seemed so exotic to those who went along to the cinema in 1982 when computers were young and promised a world of seemingly infinite possibility, now seems to raise too many questions (with "why are these programs people?" the first among them). It is even a sequel that beats its original, yet baring in mind the limitations of the original 'Tron' that is no exceptional boast. Yet in spite of 'Tron: Legacy' being in many ways so deficient, I'll be sad if it tanks at the box-office. Disney have taken a massive gamble and, in Hollywood especially, that sort of daring should be rewarded. Also, Light Cycles are pretty cool.

'Tron: Legacy' is out on December 17th and is rated 'PG' by the BBFC.

'Tangled' review:

The last decade hasn't been especially kind to the Disney animation fan. The annual triumphs of the folks at PIXAR aside, the in-house output of Walt Disney Animation Studios has been lacklustre as the once dominant studio have struggled to remain relevant in the 'Toy Story' inspired age of computer animation. Prior to this year, the 2002 film 'Lilo & Stitch' was probably their last genuinely good feature. Then, after the commercial disasters of 'Treasure Planet' and 'Home on the Range', Disney began making their own forgettable computer animations: 'Chicken Little', 'Meet the Robinsons' and 'Bolt'. Things seemed bleak until, earlier this year, Disney restored a lot of faith with 'The Princess and the Frog' - a return to the type of hand-drawn animated musical which defined the 90s renaissance - which did well with critics and at the box office. Given this success, it seemed a shame that their next film 'Tangled', an adaptation of the Rapunzel Grimm fairy tale and the studios 50th feature, would be yet another computer animation... and in 3D.

But as with buses, you wait for ages only for two to show up at once. 'Tangled' is brilliant, possibly better even than 'The Princess and the Frog' and certainly one the best Disney animations of the last ten years. Unlike the studio's other computer animations, which lacked any real character and seemed to bear little relation to the Disney style of old, 'Tangled' feels exactly like a 1990s classic in the mold of 'Beauty and the Beast' or 'The Hunchback of Notre Damme': in terms of the film's design, the quality of the animation, the timeless appeal of the source story and with the songs composed by Alan Menkin. Like all classic Disney the pacing is exactly right too with action, gags, musical numbers and romantic sequences all balanced well, leaving the whole thing feeling like an example of perfect story telling economy. Uncle Walt himself would approve.



This telling of the Rapunzel story has it that the titular girl's long, blonde locks possess magical healing properties. It is for this reason that she is stolen from her parents (here a king and queen) as a baby and spirited away to an isolated tower by a vain old hag named Gothel, who wishes to use Rapunzel's hair to keep herself forever youthful. Running parallel to this story is that of Flynn Rider, a scoundrel who has stolen a valuable crown from the palace in his latest daring heist. On the run from the guards - and from a couple of gangmates whom he betrayed - Flynn stumbles upon the tower and is soon a bewildered Rapunzel's prisoner. Rapunzel, who has been told that the outside world is far too dangerous for her, hides Flynn's valuable prize and forces him to escort her safely out of her tower so she can see the world outside. Gothel comes back to find she has gone and pursues, whilst Flynn continues to evade the law.

If I was surprised to find a computer animated in-house Disney film of this high quality, then I was even more surprised to find that it was in many ways technically the most advanced computer animation I've yet seen - dare I say it, even surpassing PIXAR. The lighting, water and fabric effects are staggeringly well done in 'Tangled' as is, perhaps unsurprisingly, hair. Though the charm of character animation is what really sets this film apart, so in keeping is it with the studio's traditions: a transformative melding of the old with the new. Generally human people look best in animated films if they are heavily stylised, whilst realistic people, such as those seen in the ugly rotoscope animations of Robert Zemeckis ('The Polar Express', 'Beowulf' and 'A Christmas Carol'), suffer from the uncanny valley effect and look unsettling and unappealing.



PIXAR have had their own trouble with this in the past: when we see people in the original 'Toy Story', they are stiff looking and unconvincing. It took almost ten years before they felt confident to make their first feature length film about recognisably human characters, 'The Incredibles' in 2004, and then they were highly stylised caricatures. Tellingly for 'Wall-E' PIXAR chose not to animate the film's recognisably "human" character at all, and instead used a live-action actor, only using computer animation to bring to life the devolved, more cartoonish, future humans. Similarly, for 'Tangled' the approach has been to create cartoon characters rather than humans, but even better than that: unlike those present in 'Meet the Robinsons' (who could sit comfortably in a Nickelodeon TV series) these are recognisably Disney creations. These characters go well with the bright and lush world in which they are placed, with its blue skies and green grass and the design of the whole picture manages to create a vibrant fantasy kingdom that feels as though it has burst from the pages of a Grimm fairy tale, very Disney whilst definitely retaining something Gothic at its core.

Rapunzel herself (voiced by a disarming Mandy Moore) is wonderful to watch, the picture of girlish "cuteness", with her disproportionate eyes in her huge head. She is an incredibly expressive and entirely likable creation, and one of the most fun Disney princess characters. She is sharp, funny and, as is typical of the modern heroine, extremely feisty. Her "prince" is equally good to watch. Voiced by Zachary Levi, Flynn Rider narrates the tale and is our post-modern anti-hero. He refuses to sing and dance and isn't taken in by all the warmth and sentimentality. If Rapunzel is a less helpless version of Belle or Ariel, then Flynn is Aladdin combined with the more recent Prince Naveen. He is quick-witted and agile, stealing to survive (and for sport), but he is also extremely narcissistic. With Naveen in 'The Princess and the Frog' and Flynn in 'Tangled', Disney have successfully rejuvenated the once dull "prince" character, so long considered a thankless task among animators.



The obligatory, toyetic animal sidekick characters - a violent, yet cowardly chameleon and a determined and moralistic white horse - are likewise superbly well animated. Particularly the horse, who is terrifically funny with his proud stride and his vendetta against Flynn, whom he hunts prodigiously. 'Tangled' allows itself some truly silly moments no longer really seen in animation as things have become more sophisticated and less exaggerated. In one scene Flynn has a sword fight with the horse, turning to Rapunzel and saying proudly, "You should know that this is the strangest thing I've ever done!" Whilst another very funny sequence sees a group of murderous ruffians burst into a brilliant song called "I've Got a Dream", in which they all state that they'd rather become interior decorators or concert pianists than tough fighters. It is a song that recalls Howard Ashman's lyrics for "Gaston" in 'Beauty and the Beast' as much as the animated sequence channels Monty Python and Mel Brooks.

Then there is the evil Gothel, who Rapunzel believes to be her mother for the majority of the film which leads to an interesting dynamic between them - one that seems to be of very genuine love between the hero and villain. Gothel is one of the most properly horrifying Disney villains. After all, she abducts a child whom she keeps locked in a tower for eighteen years. Also the fact that her power is derived from years of manipulation and brainwashing is far scarier a concept than magic or violence.



'Tangled' shares one of its co-directors, Byron Howard, with Disney's last computer animated, 3D film 'Bolt' and, like 'Bolt', the use of 3D in 'Tangled' is restrained and tasteful rather than eye-popping. With the exception of some floating lanterns, things are rarely made to fly out of the screen at you and instead the extra dimension is employed to allow depth. As with 'Bolt' 3D is also occasionally used to make self-referential jokes (it is harder for a chameleon to hide in a 3D cartoon than a 2D one after all) but this is still not done so overtly as to be distracting. Does this film need to be in 3D? Of course not. Nothing needs to be in 3D - or at least nothing worth watching. But the 3D does add depth and, for the moment at least, is still a fun gimmick when used with animated films (live action 3D tends to give me a headache and the motion blur is awful during action).

For years I've been a hand-drawn snob who felt that by going over to computer animation Disney had lost their way - along with all of their charm. 'Tangled' has won me over wholeheartedly, putting a recognisably Disney style into computer animation for the first time. If they keep this up, the studios identity crisis might finally be over and the problem of differentiating Walt Disney Animation Studios from their more lauded cousins PIXAR might finally be solved. I'm still glad to see that Disney have hand drawn projects in the works, as next April sees the release of the beautiful looking 'Winnie the Pooh', for instance. But now I don't think the studio's future depends on taking that old fashioned route. In fact alternating between computer animation and hand-drawn (hopefully as material warrants) might keep both art forms from out staying their welcome a second time on Disney's watch.

'Tangled' is released in the UK on January 28th 2011 and has been rated 'PG' by the BBFC.

CINECITY: 'Submarine' review:

Richard Ayoade is a very funny man. Once president of the Cambridge University Footlights (a role previously held by such luminaries as Peter Cook, Eric Idle, David Mitchell and (oddly) film critic Peter Bradshaw), Ayoade has established himself as a leading figure of British television comedy. He is best known for his role as Maurice Moss in Graham Linehan's once-good-now-terrible 'The IT Crowd', but has also appeared in the likes of 'The Mighty Boosh', 'Nathan Barley' and 'Time Trumpet'. Added to that, he co-wrote and starred in 80s sci-fi pastiche 'Garth Marenghi's Darkplace' and spoof chat show 'Man to Man with Dean Learner' - both as the same character. To my mind he is so gifted a comic performer that he even lit up the execrable British comedy film 'Bunny and the Bull' last year, with an all-too-brief cameo role (the film's sole highlight). Now, following a stint directing music videos for the like of the Arctic Monkeys, he has gone behind the camera to direct his debut feature film 'Submarine', which received its premiere in Toronto in September and closed Brighton's Cinecity Film Festival on Sunday evening.

For his maiden feature film the comic actor has chosen to adapt Joe Dunthorne's 2008 novel 'Submarine', which follows Welsh teenager Oliver Tate as he tries to lose his virginity (before it becomes legal) and prevent his parents from separating. Oliver is coldly analytical about his school classmates and (what he sees as) his parents failing relationship, creepily observing everything and ultimately understanding nothing. His delusions of grandeur and social awkwardness are depicted with unsettling brilliance by the young Craig Roberts. Equally compelling are a restrained Sally Hawkins as his mother and a withdrawn and quite sad Noah Taylor as his father. Another young actor, Yasmin Paige, portrays Oliver's love interest - the fickle and malevolent Jordana. Paige is, on this evidence, a watchable screen presence with bags of charisma. Also cast in a small role is Warp Films regular Paddy Considine, as a spiritual guru who has some of the film's funniest lines.



As you'd expect from a film made by Richard Ayoade, 'Submarine' is a comedy. But it is quite a dry comedy which comes more from the language and the actors reading of the dialogue than from overtly comic moments. In fact Ayoade is unafraid to go fairly long stretches without any obvious "gags" at all. Oliver's "ninja" next door neighbour Graham (Considine's guru character) is as broad as the film gets, aside from the sexual ('Inbetweeners-'esque) crudity of Oliver's school friends, but even then the comedy is never overplayed and the film skillfully avoids the all-out ridiculous. Some of the humour is pretty macabre too. For instance, one scene sees Oliver tell us, via narration, that he has read that pets are important for child development in that they prepare children to accept death. With Jordana's mother suffering from cancer, Oliver then resolves (with the best intentions) to kill her dog so as to soften the blow of her mother's possible demise. It is a relief to see, given his exagerated comic personae, that Ayoade can slip into this whole other gear and make what is a subtle, complex and overall human film.

Rarely in a debut feature do you find a director so in command of the form, as you sense that everything in 'Submarine' has been carefully played out in its director's head and translated exactly that way onto the screen. In the same way that the novel is self-consciously a novel (with Oliver referencing himself as being "the protagonist") Ayoade's film revels in the fact that it is a film, as Oliver talks about the camera techniques the film must implement if it is to tell his story. His megalomania draws obvious parallels with Jason Schwartzman's Max Fischer from the Wes Anderson film 'Rushmore' and other clear Anderson parallels are visible in terms of the films clean and colourful intertitles as well as in Ayoade's use of zooms and tracking shots. Also present is the same love of precision and detail, although these visual motifs and affectations probably owe more to the two filmmaker's shared love of the French New Wave than anything else. Oddly though, the film 'Submarine' most reminded me of was Kubrick's 'A Clockwork Orange' with Oliver's narration recounting his darker thoughts and actions with the same cheerful amorality of Malcolm McDowell's Alex.



'Submarine' is as sweet and at times unsettling as it is beautifully made and wonderfully acted. It is funny - but not too funny - and also melancholic and above all truthful, in spite of that fact that it takes place in a reality heightened by its narrator's ego. When Noah Taylor (a Hove local) introduced the film to the Cinecity crowd at the weekend, he heralded Richard Ayoade as an important British filmmaker for the future. Before the film rolled that might have just sounded like polite hyperbole. After it finished, to a rapturous ovation, I was left in little doubt that he was right.

Now Richard Ayoade joins fellow British comedians (and sometime collaborators) Armando Iannucci and Chris Morris in making a terrific debut film, I am left to wonder: with the bar raised impossibly high, what can we expect from their next efforts? I am certainly excited to find out.

'Submarine' is released in the UK in March next year and is not yet rated by the BBFC. No trailer is currently available.

"Let it snow!": How the Snow Effects UK Cinema Exhibition

Last week much of the UK, including here in Brighton, was covered in snow. Schools were closed, buses were cancelled and middle class suburban homes everywhere were left without their weekly Ocado delivery. But how did it affect the British film exhibition business? I asked a few people in the know at different East Sussex based cinemas to see exactly what they made of the bad weather.

Apparently it isn't always bad news according to occasional Splendor Cinema podcast guest James Tully. James is the marketing manager of Brighton's biggest cinema - an Odeon near the town centre - and he suggested that the snow can in fact have a positive effect on business for the chain depending on the target audience: "If the weather is bad, then the schools are closed so if you are one of the few businesses still open then there is a good opportunity to make money. We see a rise in family business during the day as parents have nothing to do with their kids. But films for a mature audience suffer as older people will not want to risk going out onto snow & ice just to see a film."



Likewise, podcast co-host Jon Barrenechea, manager of Brighton's Duke of York's Picturehouse, says that his cinema can also benefit from the snow. But whereas the multiplex takes advantage of kids off school eager to watch 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One', the Duke's unique atmosphere gives it an advantage in attracting older crowds: "During the Christmas holidays the whole place just feels like a cosy front room in an eccentric’s house. Mulled wine, fairy lights, the Edwardian architecture, it’s the perfect setting for when it snows, so we tend to get busy in times like this, especially recently as people haven’t been able to drive anywhere, they’ve been walking down to the cinema."

The Duke of York's not only has the advantage of a large, loyal and local customer base. It is also based just on the edge of town and sat on two main roads - which are generally usable even in snowy weather, as the fire station next door needs constant access - whilst the Odeon, being in the centre of town, is also accessible to a lot of people. It is a different story for a cinema based in a more remote area, like the Uckfield Picture House. Manager and owner Kevin Markwick told me, "snow has a devastating effect on our business, particularly in a semi rural area like this. People simply can’t get here on country roads. For some reason no one seems to want to walk here either. ['Harry Potter'] business has dropped by 65% since the snow hit on Tuesday [November 30th]." The Odeon's James echos Kevin's concerns saying, "I think it's a tough time for independent cinemas who are programmed weeks in advance, as if their big hit film falls in that week [of bad weather] then their profits fall through the floor."



Time of day is another factor in people's decision to come out to the movies in blizzard conditions too. Whilst day time shows can receive a boost in attendance, James noticed that evening business "declines as guests do not know what to expect by the time their film has finished. If for example you are watching an 8pm 'Harry Potter' that finishes at 11pm, you could emerge to find another foot of snow has fallen, transport cancelled etc." Jon also sees a drop for certain shows. Notably the National Theatre and MET Opera screenings, which are broadcast live via satellite and regularly sell out: "The only times it really affects us is when we have special events like the Operas when people are driving in from out of town."

Another concern is for smaller films with niche appeal. Again James Tully provided his view of what can happen to such films at this time of year: "it's a tough time if you are a distributor of a small film as the film will not get held-over if it doesn't perform well. I hope that 'Monsters' manages to find an audience... It would be a shame after such an excellent marketing campaign to see the film fail at the last hurdle." Customers are unaware of how film distribution works, which creates a problem for the smaller films says James, "People also assume that a film will be playing indefinitely and that if it snows, and they can't go out, then they will see it next week. Unfortunately the reality is that the film probably wont last another week."

All pictures taken by my girlfriend and I whilst snowed-in in Patcham last week.

'Monsters' review:

Let me get one thing out of the way at the beginning of this review. Yes, it is indeed impressive that young British director Gareth Edwards has made his debut film, the sci-fi, road movie 'Monsters', for reportedly less than half a million dollars. More impressive still is that he not only wrote and directed the film, but acted as his own cinematographer and even did all the films digital effects at home on his computer, apparently using relatively affordable software. This is indeed laudable, and points towards a future where big, special effects blockbusters may be made by indie filmmakers just as well as by big studios. And what a future that could be. Imaginative filmmakers with epic visions who constantly find themselves restricted by the commercial interests of the studios (such as Alex Cox and Terry Gilliam) might be able to make the kind of ambitious films they always wanted to make.

Gareth Edwards is not alone in thinking big with limited resources. Uruguayan amateur Fede Alvarez made headlines last year by earning himself a big Hollywood contract after achieving success on YouTube with his four minute short film called 'Ataque de Panico'. That film also had a big sci-fi concept which would usually cost more than that short's stated $300 budget, as it depicted giant robots attacking Uruguay's capital city of Montevideo. Earlier in 2009, Canadian brothers Ian and David Purchase achieved a huge internet following with their short film adaptation of the Half-Life 2 video game, 'Half-Life: Escape from City 17', which also boasted impressive effects and a sense of scale on a meagre budget. Video games have inspired countless others too - including polished fan film versions of Pokemon and Street Fighter - but the highest profile one saw 'Fame' remake helmer Kevin Tancharoen shooting his own D.I.Y Mortal Kombat short in an effort to pitch a full movie to studios. No doubt the the box office success of 'Monsters' will inspire a few more on a feature length scale and this can only be a good thing.



However, forget for a second the film's low-budget and other indie credentials (it stars Scoot McNairy of 'In Search of a Midnight Kiss' fame alongside a supporting cast of non-actors) and what you have in 'Monsters' is a fairly unfulfilling film which didn't satisfy me as a creature feature nor as a relationship drama.

The plot is as follows: a photojournalist (Andrew played by McNairy) is asked by his boss to escort his daughter (Samantha played by Whitney Able) from Mexico back to her home in the United States. After missing the last boat back, the pair decide to embark on the journey by land. This would sound like a simple enough trip. Except this story is set in the near future, where the land between the newly drawn borders of Mexico and the USA is the "infected zone" - home to extraterrestrial creatures accidentally brought down to Earth by a malfunctioning NASA probe. Worse still, the infected zone is under constant bombardment by the US Air Force, who carpet bomb the whole area to keep the aliens at bay. As you'd expect with such a modest budget, the aliens are very rarely seen and instead the film is more focused on the dynamic between Samantha and Andrew.



This would be fine if either of them were interesting or if they ever had anything interesting to say. 'Monsters' is suffocated by constant exposition with people saying things like "so let me get this straight: we have 48 hours to get to the coast" and when we aren't having things we have just seen and heard simplified for us we are forced to spend our time in the company of a couple of morons. Andrew has, he tells us, seen the corpses of the aliens before on several occasions. The creatures are also on the television news or caricatured by informative children's cartoons whenever we see a television. The duo are aware they are heading through the infected zone, as a great many sign posts tell them so. They see the destruction of areas affected by the so-called monsters. Yet when confronted by them they are forever shouting (and I mean shouting) "what the hell is that thing", over and over and over again.

The shouting doesn't stop even when their armed guards - who by the way are asked several times "why have you guys got guns?" (gee, I wonder why) - tell them to be quiet during one attack sequence. The pair just can't shut up, forever yelping "why are you putting your gas masks on?" (even though that very question was the subject of a public service broadcast aimed at children in a previous scene). When they pass through a destroyed town they ask aloud "all these people's homes. But where are all the people?" They are infuriating human beings who are just begging to be made victims of intergalactic assault. What's more, Andrew is totally inept at his job. When he isn't taking cliché, sub-Banksy photos of children wearing gas masks or playing with barbed wire, he is going on a cathartic journey to grow a conscience which ultimately sees him cover up a dead child's body rather than take a picture for his employers. It is supposed to be a sign that he has, in leaving supposed civilization, rediscovered what it means to be human. By contrast the human world - which, full of greed and evil, pays for pictures of dead children - has become alien. To me it just shows that the film doesn't understand the role such photojournalism has played in turning public opinion against violent wars since Vietnam. Certainly, there is a moral ambiguity to it, but it isn't a simple case of "right and wrong". But 'Monsters' isn't a nuanced film and Edwards it seems would rather resort to trite, sentimental corn than face the more complex realities of the human condition.



This heavy-handed moralising about the modern world continues into the films 'Avatar'-like eco message and in its meaningless symbolism as the American troops at the beginning are shown attacking an alien at a petrol station. To what end? I couldn't tell you. Accept that it's making some loose connection between the American's attack on the creatures and the war in Iraq. Edgy stuff that should take the heat off Julian Assange once Washington finds out. The film also suggests that Mexican officials are corrupt, leading me to wonder whether a deleted scene would have revealed the toiletry habits of bears.

I can't help but feel that the film's shallow "humans are bad" rhetoric would be dismissed if this were larger film, perhaps directed by James Cameron. It's a message that makes no sense either. Whilst in the infected wilderness they encounter the aforementioned dead child. They also see the eviscerated bodies of people they were travelling with. What is so wonderful about the aliens is anyone's guess. Just that they're not human. Because we humans are so terribly, terribly bad, you see. It is a po-faced film which is smugly satisfied by its seriousness. Edwards knows that everyone will line up to gush "it's a monster film that isn't about the monsters!" - as if that was what we'd all been waiting for.



'Monsters' didn't thrill me and it certainly didn't move me either. Yet I must return to the first point of this review and put the thing back in its context as a film that cost a first-time director less than $500,000 to make. With that in mind it is an excellently well designed film. If you didn't know it was made on the cheap, you probably wouldn't be able to tell from what is an extremely handsomely made film. Much like that of last year's 'District 9', the world Edwards creates is an interesting one and you are drawn to wonder at the story around the story. You scan the world for details which will give you more information about this time and place, with these strange circumstances told to you in a matter of fact way and made to seem highly plausible. It is also a credit to Edwards that he stages his scenes of tension well, even if they are all ripped straight out of the Spielberg playbook (the car attack scene is lifted from 'Jurassic Park', whilst the encounter with a curious alien in the gas station is reminiscent of a similar sequence in 'War of the Worlds') - perhaps appropriate given that Spielberg's first short movies required similar ingenuity in terms of homemade special effects.

As a film, I wasn't sold on 'Monsters'. But as part of a growing and exciting trend it thrills me absolutely. I can only imagine what we'll see in the future if anyone with an idea and the talent can feasibly make whatever film they want to. Indie filmmakers have long between able to make gritty, social realism films and small scale dramas. But maybe now science fiction and fantasy are not out of reach. I don't want to oversell it: Gareth Edwards may have only spent $500,000 making this film, but he still had half a million dollars at his disposal (not to mention the backing of Vertigo Films). But who knows? Maybe the next 'Star Wars' or 'Lawrence of Arabia' will be made in a bedroom rather than a movie studio.

'Monsters' is rated '12A' by the BBFC and is out now in the UK. It is playing this week at Brighton's Duke of York's Picturehouse cinema.

'Chico & Rita' review:

It has taken a long time, but in the UK we seem to be catching up with the likes of Japan and France when it comes to taking animated films seriously. For years animated films were almost always children's films and were routinely dismissed by critics and cinephiles. Eyebrows were raised when, in 1991, Disney's 'Beauty and the Beast' was (quite deservedly) nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards. Flash forward to 2010 and Disney's 'Up' was nominated for the same honour without the same murmurings of dissent. (In fact that film made many critics end of year "best film" lists.) Whilst those two Disney films are most certainly aimed at children (albeit with adult themes), it is no longer impossible to find animated films aimed at older audiences in UK cinemas, even if it isn't yet widespread. Earlier this year 'The Illusionist', a slow and poignant (and mostly silent) French film, did fairly well here playing mostly to adults. And now 'Chico & Rita', a sexually explicit, 15-rated Spanish animation, has been released in the UK to general acclaim.

By "sexually explicit" I really only mean that 'Chico & Rita' has a couple of sex scenes and some female nudity, deemed "strong sex" by the BBFC. Presumably this was because the next certificate down is a '12A' (the same rating as the latest 'Harry Potter' film) and the body wanted to make it clear that this is not intended as a film for children. This must be the rationale as compared to live action films the scenes of love-making in 'Chico & Rita' are fairly tame. But what makes this Spanish animation a movie for adults is not the tasteful sexual content, but rather the fact that there is really nothing here for children. There is no comedy relief and, save for one brief chase sequence, there is no "action". Instead this is a real love story, filled with all the melancholy that can bring. It is a colourful film of vitality and also a tale of regret and near tragedy.



'Chico & Rita' is partly told in flashback as an old man named Chico, living alone in a small and squalid apartment in a run down part of modern Havana, recalls his time as a virtuoso pianist as he falls for a beautiful singer named Rita. This love story is set against a backdrop of the vibrant and exciting nightlife that typified pre-revolution Havana in the 1940s (at least for visiting American playboys) with the film set to the rhythms of Latin jazz. Soon the duo form a popular musical double-act, but Chico is a bit of a cad and he loses Rita due to his drinking and womanising. Soon she is whisked away to New York City to become a major singer and even a star of MGM musicals, leaving Chico behind. Chico then sells his piano and pursues her in the hope of rekindling their love. As you can probably guess from the fact that the film is told in flashback by a sad man living alone, things don't go especially well and the couple are again separated by the cruelty of fate.

The film's beautiful animation is, from the looks of it, mostly done on computer but given the appearance of traditional animation (à la 'Waltz With Bashir'). The use of computers allows of a very fluid style of direction, that has much more in common with live action than animation - perhaps owing to the fact that the film's co-director Fernando Trueba comes from live action film (whilst the film's other director Javier Mariscal is a designer and not a filmmaker by trade). What the use of animation allows is great period detail, as the film recreates not only 40s Havana and New York, but also Paris. It also enables Chico to meet with long dead legends of music, such as Charlie Parker and Chano Pozo (to whose bloody death Chico bears horrified witness). Some of the film's details are (perhaps knowingly) anachronistic: for example although the Broadway show version of 'On the Town' debuted in 1944, the popular Gene Kelly film wouldn't be released until 1949, a year after Chico's voyage to New York upon which it is referenced (along with the tune of "New York, New York"). But regardless, these period details are a consistent pleasure - and there are lots of them to be seen.



The film's depiction of Cuba is also multi-faceted and nuanced. In the pre-revolutionary section we see Havana as a place that is fun and lively. It is a place full of possibility, where a talented singer or pianist can get noticed and make it in the USA. But also shown is the contrast extreme between the rich and poor, and racism, with the wealthy Americans who come to Havana shown going to racially restricted clubs which don't allow native Cubans. When Chico returns to Cuba amidst the revolution in 1959, things have changed again. Now we are shown the optimism Catro's revolution brought to Cuban people. Indeed Chico's first response seems to be positive. But before long he is told that his music is banned for being too American, which then shows us the limitations brought about by the move to communism. Similarly, the situation Chico finds himself in as an old man highlights the problems of modern Cuba - crumbling and stuck in the past. Whether you put that failure down to the extreme (and unreasonable) economic sanctions imposed on the island by the US or to the inherent failures of communism, it remains a reality which the film captures in detail.

'Chico & Rita' is a beautiful, bittersweet story about love, creativity and growing old, brought to life with vibrant, colourful animation. The period setting, the music, the atmosphere of the piece elevate what is already a really emotionally affecting story to even greater heights. It is a film which skillfully manages to romanticise the past it depicts without ignoring its shadier aspects. Overall it is a human story about well rounded characters, none of whom are really right or wrong, and all of whom are marked by their regrets and failings, but also by their unwavering belief in romantic love. A very good film which happens to be told via animation, hopefully proving we're ready for more.

'Chico & Rita' is rated '15' by the BBFC and is out in the UK on a limited release.