Stone (2010)

Is Milla Jojovich a good actress? This might inspire more internal debate within yourself then you might expect. Sure the case for the opposition is strong - she's been involved in so many blotted on the cultural landscape- it betters belief if she can read English, the amount of times when says yes to a shitty script and some might say that she was previously at her best when she was playing on her naivety like her character in The Fifth Element.  But in Stone, she has to go toe-toe in the acting stakes with De Niro and Edward Norton, two of the... well they've been better in previous years and still capable of returning to previous glories- Jojovich has never been that good. But I'm here to tell you that maybe we shouldn't have wrote her off since-and i never thought I'd be writing these words- she acts Norton and De Niro into a corner.
The story of Stone is that De Niro plays a prison parole officer and Norton is one of his last cases before he retires. Jojovich plays Norton's wife and takes it upon herself to offer herself to De De Niro so he might look on her husband's case favorably. The strange part is she doesn't seem to mind and well- the term nymphomanic is thrown around and misused a lot but she'd probably knob a door off its hinges.
Maybe Jojovich does so well were Norton and De Niro don't is that in a highly sexual (not gratuitously sexualised though) film, a lilith thing like her can play that more credibly. No one wants to see Bobby D humping away. It makes you wonder if St. John's Ambulance were waiting on the side.. just in case.  Norton looks equally embarrassed with the 'sex stuff' that permiates through his character.
But Stone is an interesting watch because you struggle to fully understand the 3leads motives- De Niro has an extremely dysfunctional abusive relationship with his wife and it's made her an alcoholic wreck but it's not clear why he's like that. Norton seems to taking a vested interest in reforming his character but how sincere is he. Jojovich seems to be fully invested in getting her husband free but she's not that interested in being the least monogamous. These questions are as frustrating as they appear and maintain your interest. Especially Jojovich's character and congrats on your performance here. I hope it's not a fluke. 'Psycho hose beast' fits her like a... glove?  Now if we can suggest to her how to kill her husband Paul W. S. Anderson we'll really be cooking with gas...

I watched Stone (2010) on Blu-ray via LoveFilm.
My 2011 in Movies will return with Belle De Jour (1969)...

This Sporting Life (1963)

This Sporting Life is one of the landmark films of the British New Wave of the 60's. It was one of the first starring roles for both, Richard Harris and Rachel Roberts and one of the first films directed by Lindsay Anderson.
It's the story-almost sweat dream of a young rugby player(Harris), his burgeoning fame & fortune and his torrid relationship with his landlady (Roberts).
It's a testament to the writing that the story of sporting ambition and success still stands up and it could apply to any athlete today. Well I say that but Harris just kinda shows an interest in playing professional rugby and the club basically let him. I mean he is obviously very good at the game but he doesn't have to come up through the ranks or train from near birth.
But I digress, Harris is completely convincing as this sulky Irish Brando tossing the oversized egg around. He's a guy basically excited by his future and the opportunities in store. He's more than happy to share his life with landlord/widow Roberts and her kids but concerns about her neighbours preconceptions stop her from the happiness so within her grasp. It's hard to believe that this was the school of thought about 50years ago. I wouldn't even recoginise MY neighbours if I passed them in the street, let alone give a jot about the way I conduct myself. That said, my neighbours need to WASH THEY ASSS but I digress.
This role was no stranger to Roberts; she was very much the queen of the kitchensink dramas of the 50's, playing the perennial housewife. I have a huge love for Rachel Roberts. She was married to Rex Harrison and suffered terribly with what was probably, bipolar as well as issues with alcohol. It's very sad to read about. Someone should make a biopic because she simply embodied the graceful strong female and she had such and dramatic life.
So as i say amazing acting is on show here but it's also brilliantly written by David Storey and directed by Lindsay Anderson. Anderson is one of the best British directors. He was so facsinated by our class system. His other gold-plated classic 'if?' is so indicative of Britishness, strong and methodical but mischievous and This Sporting Life is no different. Sure it's dramatic and tense but there's a lot of fun going on and vicariously enjoyed these local stars lifestyles.
The main thing that has always put me off older films is that I (wrongly) assume they won't be relevent but this film in its tone and themes are very relevant except the role of women in local society but that's just progress...

The Eagle (2011)

This is likely to be the solitary reference to the sub-genre dubbed 'swords & sandals'. I won't be actively going around looking ones to watch and i doubt we'll be seeing anymore new ones this year. They came back for a hot minute after Gladiator (2000) came out- there's was Troy, 300 and Kingdom of... something. Orlando Bloom was in it. It was conspicuous by its shittiness. My point is they all were and i  think maybe Gladiator wouldn't even be as good as you remember. I will say I hated history in school and this is likely a byproduct of that.
By if anyone can engage me, with history- it's gotta be Kevin MacDonald, right? The director of the superb 'Last King of Scotland'. I haven't seen Touching the Void but I'm sure that's good too.  He just seems to have a knackered for effectively photographing things in a way that makes them so vivid- the over-saturated look of '... Scotland' for example.  And this film with it's picturesque vistas of Scotland that make it seem like a rainforest in the first shot, is great.  That's not the problem.
The problem is that the dialogue in this film scans like a frigging Haynes Manual. Now some people (read:Tom Clancy readers) enjoy that sort of discourse. And I guess something like the brilliant The Wire might have a similar issue; that you have to learn a whole new syntax or dialect of English but you've got 10's of hours with a tv series like that. This film is about 100mins tops. Now I was already to lay this on the writer, Jeremy Brock but he's been involved in writing a lot of successful British films inc.  '... Scotland', Brideshead Revisited and Mrs Brown but those are adaptations and this is an original piece. It's just the story is so plodding that nothing seems interesting and when the battle scenes do come along,  they seem out of nowhere and jarring. Which is not to say they're not any good cos they are, the final one especially but I guess basically I knew what was going on but I really care.
I don't want to level this on the actors cos people like Jamie Bell and Mark Strong are solid British actors and they aren't stinking up the joint but then, the casting of Channing Tatum seems (to me) to be a cynical plot to capitalise on his fame to sell the film abroad and get the film off the ground in the first place but as I say, that script doesn't do anyone any favours.
The Eagle is just exceedingly boring. As I think back about it, I'm bored. It's also very reminicent of Centurion, the low-budget version of this from last year. It was a bit grittier and wilderness but it worked and didn't remind me to pick up milk for breakfast tomorrow....

I watched The Eagle (2011) at the cinema.
My 2011 in Movies will return with This Sporting Life (1963)...

Faster (2010)

For what it is and it ain't much, Faster has some wierd ideas about redemption. Dwayne Johnson (still The Rock to you and I) plays a wronged man fresh out of the pen out for revenge on the various people responsible for killing his brother. So far so good right? Not the most original idea I know but I'm fine with that- violent revenge stories are normally urban Westerns and will be around even after cockroaches depart their mortal coil.
My beef with Faster is that it is so dour, it's no fun to watch. Revenge stories are best when they are communicating a cathartic thrill. Faster is fully prepared to use exploitative content like drug-use, severe violence and what a film ratings board might call 'themes of child rape and... snuff tapes' but at no point does it feel justified; it all just seems like cynical posturing to get the 'R' rating. Like for example, the guy is a getaway driver and finegles a sweet ride but there is only one car chase.  He's also dangerous prison fighter but all the killing is so blunt- usually by point-blank gunshot to people who don't really defend themselves; it's actually quite pornographic. Now these are bad people who are killed- snuff-filming statutory rapists and telemarketers but still it seems excessive. If I may digress- Faster had the same 15 rating that Easy A, the light vaugely-raunchy teen film, has and i usually think the BBFC get it right but you can't hold these films in the same age-suitablity range.
As for the acting- a mixed bag. The Rock does hurt and sullen between the aforementioned murders which is 'meh'-not bad, not great. Billy Bob Thornton is pretty good, actually a return to the Thornton of the 90's - goofy and swaggerless. Carla Cugino turns up and good like she usually is but the script lets her down.  Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje turns up at the end and I've loved that guy since HBO's Oz. He does alright here with the little help has to work with.
As you may have gathered this film is too light on action (shooting people in the face notwithstanding) to get away with a light script but for all the covoluted non-linear storytelling, the script is pretty featherweight; the big reveal at the end was telegraphed by the halfway point and there's the character of an assassin that's... urgh... i can't even bring myself to say what's going on with that guy but it's superfluous-he added nothing to the film and in fact, detracts from the thing because you hate him out of confusion.
I really expected better from George Tillman Jr at least. He made the Biggie biopic, Notorious and I thought that was pretty good- a servicable biopic which could have gone wrong a hundred ways but turned out fine. Here he fudges the pooch with a simple revenge story. I've seen better Dominic Sena movies. Faster is like a rip-off of a Dominic Sena movie, which is the most sussinct indictment I can think of.

I watched Faster (2010) at the cinema.
My 2011 in Movies will return with This Sporting Life (1963)...

You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger (2010)

Sometimes incisive, sometimes plain old tut- the ouvre of Woody Allen will never be completely admired nor completely written off.
These days he churns out films with an almost reckless abandon. A diplomatic could only describe him as prolific. Me, i generally like the guy. I love Small Time Crooks and Sweet And Lowdown; i liked Vicky Christina Barcelona and Whatever Works recently but he doesn't hit every time and while I appreciate the need to be active and creative... i don't see why he has to maintain this almost yeoman-like production line of films every year. No one in the western film industry works like that, in writing and directing a new film every year since 1983 (?!) and i guess we wouldn't mind if some of them didn't seem so aimless but then next year, maybe he's back on form again- you can never totally write him off. Despite moments and a great cast, 'You Will Meet...' is one of those aimless ones.
Most of his films are about romantic couplings and this one is as one might gather no different. It covers the entanglements of 6 or 8people- newly divorced old couple Gemma Jones and Anthony Hopkins, their daughter Naomi Watts and her husband Josh Brolin as well Freda Pinto, Antonio Banderas and Lucy Punch, who variously represent new starts for the 1st four.
One of the strange things about Woody Allen films is his voice and style are so unique to him that it bleeds through and you start hearing it in other male roles on his films; Michael Caine in Hannah and Her Sisters, John Cusack in Bullets Over Broadway amongst others. It can be curious and/or jarring. But when it's coming out of the mouths of Brolin and Hopkins it just seems unconvincing. Now I think those two are very accomplished actors and It's hardly the shark-jump of say, Stone Cold Steve Austin turning up in an Almodovar picture but these guys are just plain shitty at delivering Woody Allen dialogue. Like creaky. Like they've never seen a Woody Allen movie before...  but that can't be the case because you wouldn't turn up unless you had and he only gives you the script on the day (probably.) It's not just those guys- there are other actors that can't deliver the one-liners and you're stuck watching them fall flat. I am reticent to blame the actors though; you don't really elect to be in a Woody Allen movie, he picks you and I'm sure he only directs people by telling them simply either 'try it again another way' and 'don't do it again like that' until it looks like something he's happy with. Not that doesn't work sometimes but you have to be a significant character actor like Gemma Jones and the glorious Lucy Punch for that to work. It's like Allen is so goofy about how nuts it is that Hannibal Lektor is saying his words, he doesn't really care about what he does with it. When you watch Brolin doing it, you think if this was nebbish New Yorker Woody you might buy the ironic lechery and jagging-about he does but Brolin is a good looking Californian and it really does not land.


I watched You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger (2010) at the cinema.
My 2011 in Movies will return with Faster (2010)...

Limitless (2011)

Limitless had the head start that every film wants- it has a great high-concept and a well edited trailer that perfectly explains it. Which is not to say these elements are rare but few films follow up on their potential, but i'm happy to say Limitless does.
I guess we've all heard of this thing about humans only using between 10% and 20% of our brainpower and as you know, this film posits what would happen if you were using a 100% (?). Actually that's only part of what it's about-it does get far more concerned with the wunderdrug that provides this power and the supply and demand of that. Now I realise this the necessary cause/reason for the tension in the film and it does interest me but I was just interested in the idea of what you would do if you could multiply your potential. But those are niggles... Limitless has bigger issues but I'll come back to them.  Bradley Cooper is really great in this- he's showing he can carry a weighty role and Bobby Dee doesn't really turn up for very long but he does some scenery chewing and that's fine but I don't know if i buy the idea of Abbie Cornish's character, the love interest but that's just based on a weird supposition that if you were concerned with using all your potential and you had to micro-managed your time so you weren't wasting any... would you waste it on monogamy? I don't know where that thought comes from. In reality, monogamy would save a lot of time probably. The thing about films like this, like Inception and The Matrix (pardon a very broad comparison), 'techno-thrillers' as i saw it described today is you, the audience are so curious about the concept and the rules of the macguffin, that you want to forget about the story and concentrate on the exposition, in a way. Like the main character has a finite amount of the one-pill-a-day drug and I was far more concerned then he was about using his brain resources to learn pharmaceutical chemistry and produce more but that's me being silly; that's like worrying about James Bond being killed. But like I say, I was thinking he should be sorting that out instead of investigating the withdrawals of the drug and the film should have been focusing on the creative by-product of doing the drug than the drug its self.
But director Neil Burger and writer Leslie Riding know that they have this bountiful IP to play with and Limitless makes it patently obvious they want to pack as much as they can in; at times, it could induce travel-sickness and it's unpredictable to say the least. Obviously there are things I'd change focus on but it's so imaginative and interesting that's it's difficult to be mad at.  I guess that's the point- the film is moving so fast even if you're not sure where you're going, you're giddy and excited from the speed...


I watched Limitless (2011), at the cinema.
My 2011 in Movies will return with You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger (2010)...

Jennifer Eight (1992)

It's Bruce Robinson time again on My 2011 in Movies. This was the last film before this year's (hope hope hope) The Rum Diaries, that Robinson directed in 1992. There doesn't seem to be a common thread in Robinson subjects of writing; Withnail was comedy autobio, How To Get Ahead...  was satire:he wrote screenplays for The Killing Fields and In Dreams too and this, Jennifer Eight is a standard serial killer mystery. Andy Garcia is a forensic cop who has relocated to a small town after his wife... I'm not sure if she died or just left-anyway doing the main thing you shouldn't do in any new job that anyone starts- he starts throwing his weight around and reopened an unsolved murder case, when someone finds a human hand at the dump ('... Dude, i could get you a hand by 3pm this afternoon...'). He also is so astute, he can tell this was a blind person's hand because of erosion to the digits from Braille (to be fair, I'm running through the story quickly and that seemed less of a stretch in the film) and through the basis of unsolved disappearances at the blind college, he goes to there and meets a young blind Uma Thurman, who for the sake of time and salient knowledge, is likely to be the next victim and looks exactly like Garcia's ex-wife.
I'm a massive fan of Withnail And I; this is a read but I've never been in a situation in pop culture where you like someone's one piece of work and everything else doesn't resonate at all. If anything this is like the anti-Withnail - it is stock, story-led, overlong and American. It's a serial killer plot from any number of tv detective shows in any number of countries and though the 'blindness' angle is fresh, there's nothing special done with it really; it's an average mystery yarn with red-herrings and disinformation.  But half-way through, i started thinking about interesting plot that might happen (that doesn't by the way)... what if blind Uma was the murderer? You never see any blinding killers do you? (No pun intended) Could be for any number of reasons- she was jealous of the other girls boyfriends, domination over bullies, thrill of the hunt... take your pick. Now that might sound exploitative but obviously this film makes a nod to Vertigo- Hitch never had a problem with landing that kind of story in a broadly pallitible way. One man's opinion.
Andy Garcia's fine in this, i guess... goes a bot overboard with the desk-smacking. I mean who doesn't enjoy a spot of desk-smacking but in moderation, guy. Sheesh. John Malkovich pops up for an extended cameo. No reason for him to be in this but he neither adds or subtracts to the proceedings. Oh yeah, Lance Henriksen is in it too as a friendly old cop buddy type, Garcia's pal- now I'm sure Lance is a pro,  a lovely generous man but no one wants to see him being understandable or nice. The thought of him being affection to a woman creeps me out like an uncle kissing you. It's weird.
So I do look forward to The Rum Diaries but only because of the prime BOOOOOZE element...

I watched Jennifer Eight (1992) on DVD via LoveFilm.
My 2011 in Movies will return with Limitless (2011)...

Anuvahood (2011)

Adam Deacon is the probably the best thing or most memorable thing in any of the British urban or gangster films of late. Kid's got charisma. There's no other words for it. He usually play a brash mean cocky prick on whatever he's in but you're happy to see him. That said if i was running a film company and he came in thru my door and said he wanted to talk about a project i'd say great. If he wanted to make the script he wrote, I'd say 'umm interesting' but really if he wanted to direct that film too...  well if don't know if I'd be that brave. Well I've never been happier to not be a movie exec and huge props to the guys at Revolver Entertainment, who have been making great distribution choices for so long now because I have to say Anuvahood is a resounding success in my blog. I guess stylistically this is closest to an East London 'Friday' not that I really liked that movie. On the review I read of this film, an exercise in don't indulge in much these days- they made out this was a spoof of the recent British hood movies. Excited to see what this Adam Deacon joint looked like, my heart dropped. Not that you can't make a hood movie spoof- I love (most) of 'Don't Be A Menace... ' but spoofs are a genre so difficult to land as I've said before. Thankfully that reviewer must have been watching a completely different film because this no spoof, just a pretty broad comedy.
I think the Deacon's genius in making Anuvahood is he keeps his scale small setting it on a single estate block and the story is pretty much about his character-K(enneth); like I say he's not even written or directed for tv before but he does have other a co-writer and co-director. Now this is film fairly well directed but I won't say it the best writing you'll see but instead it's filled with great characters. Now as a rule of thumb, I'd say lots of characters at the same time in a debut like this going to be too many plates spinning but they're all so oustentatious and dynamic, they just revitalise the film, especially the 'hater' played by Femi Oyeniran and Tyrone, the neighbourhood bully played by Richie Campbell.
Now when i say, 'broad comedy'... this is not likely to be everyone's cup of tea, the film is extremely heavy in British urban patios and there are fairly unnecessary gross-out moments but none more than a Farrelly Bros picture.  But as much as I wanted to like it, i think it is a good effort and it is a strong debut but more importantly, it is very funny! It's a great example of British film-making and you would be unlikely to find a better urban film this year.
I look forward to seeing whatever Deacon wants to make next..

I watched Anuvahood (2011), at the cinema.
My 2011 in Movies will return with You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger (2010)...

The Tournament (2010)

So yeah... okay The Tournament is a bit of violent tut, that was always going to be destined for the video shop before it became rinsed on ITV4 or Zone Horror. It's ambitions are simple and the story is predictable. So predictable you know how the next 90mins will play out exactly. There's nothing particularly unique about the film, it's a Running Man clone and it's not surprising to see Ving Rhames or Robert Carlyle in this sort of fare. I knew it would be forgotten as soon as it was released but I thought it'd have at least a general release, which it didn't. But i've seen it now and maybe it's the underdog status or the fact, I thrive on being contentious (I know which one I'm leaning towards...)  but I want to stand up for The Tournament and say...  'Look man...  I know this is a bit of violent tut but isn't there a place for that in this crazy mixed up world? Also it shows you can double Bulgaria for Middlesbrough QUITE convincingly.'
Let's cover that first. In this aformentioned 'wild and crazy world' for some reason, it's cheaper to film Middlesborough in Bulgaria than it is in Middlesborough. Now I've never been to Peterborough and I'm sure the cost work and (life) is cheaper but it's hardly as remote or extreme to film there like the Amazon or Antarctica but it's strange to say there there is fewer noticable differences between those 2places TO Me then say Toronto doubling New York.
But I digress. What stands out for me,  in terms of this film is that it had no studio backing, no name director or writers, nothing particularly salable about it but somehow they made a film that seems quite a large action film with major set-pieces and quite exciting ones at that.  Now some of the film is very obviously budget; there are points where it's more than happy to spend 5mins in a random warehouse and like I say... Middlesborough but it does go full throttle, to use the parlence, on the action like you'd expect of any Hollywood fare. I checked the director, Scott Mann's IMDB and he really has no salient experience in directing action, outside of Kids Stars In Your Eyes (That's true, by the way.) It's a true movie miracle that he pulled this off and I was just curious as hell to know how he pulled it off.
If ever a dvd needed a behind-the-scenes... This one. Not there. I haven't had time to do research but I will.
Anyway, the story is meh and acting has a fresh pine smell but that's okay cos the action just sorta trumps that and the 'most dangerous game' premise is like the western but even simpler- you get to run around shooting people without the story. That's the beauty of it...

I watched The Tournament (2010), on DVD via LoveFilm.
My 2011 in Movies will return with Anuvahood (2011) ...

Appaloosa (2008)

I guess it would seem like I watch a lot of Westerns if i didn't keep saying that I don't watch a lot of Westerns, based on my viewing choices so far.
But I am completely falling for a genre that I've basically dismissed before this year. I guess what I respect about the Western is the simplicity of the storytelling, that there are clearly defined goodies and smelly evil baddies. Maybe that seems to simple for today's standards; I'd say there was a look more 'grey' in characters of the fare of present day but Appaloosa is just simple story told well.
It's basically the story of 2 GOOD bad-asses who are trying to save a town from BAD bad-asses with extreme prejudice. And how they did gleefully murderate anyone who dared mistake their word as anything but the law!
It might not seem like the most exciting cast but Appaloosa makes a great ensemble of actors doing solid work. Ed Harris (also director and co-writer) and Viggo Mortenson play the Sheriff and Deputy until the wheels fall off. You just love these guys all the way. Harris is the old hand straight-shooter with less than perfect vocabulary and social skills and Mortenson is younger-ish loyal erodite sidekick. Sometimes it seems like Mortenson is playing his devotion to his boss and best friend on the knife-edge of homosexuality but it never crosses it. The cast is rounded out with Renee Zellweger as the love interest and Jeremy Irons as the bad guy. To be fair, Zellweger comes across exceptionally well as a frail woman who yearns to be protected by any means necessary; it's the best part for a woman i've seen in a western and Irons? Well he's a bit out of place in this but he's such a great panto villain, it cancels that out. More out of place is Timothy Spall, who I like to think was invited out on a free holiday to South Texas all-in by Ed for a few days work but there's no reason for him to be in the film. Honorable mention to Lance Henrickson for getting a part in something not 'a piece a shot movie'. I know he's been in good films but the ratio is so low that it bares mentioning. Your cat-on-a-washing-line 'Hang In Here' poster is on the way..
Coming back to the classic plotting of a western, there's almost something comforting about the fact you know the heroes, at some point are going to jail the bad guy and there will be a siege on the sheriff's office to have him freed. When it keeps it simple, Appaloosa is entirely effective; the 1st half of the film is really quite brilliant but the 2nd half starts to run out of steam when it tries to force more story in then is necessary but the actor Ed Harris is completely legitimate writer and director and it's a heads above most actor's side-directorial projects...

I watched Appaloosa (2008) on tv - FilmFour, 21st March 9pm.
My 2011 in Movies will return with The Tournament (2010)...

The Virginity Hit (2010)

I might seem like I take pleasure in talking shit about bad films but I don't. As much as I enjoy wasting my time watching movies- I don't enjoy having my time wasted. Maybe I should know better. Maybe even the act of me thinking this movie would be like Superbad meets The Blair Witch Project should have implied how bad a prospective The Virginity Hit would have been. But this really caught me off guard.
A few days ago I watched that Idris Elba Black Ops film and that was poor but that was fine art compared to this. There is nothing redeemable about this film. I've seen worse and I wasn't holding high hopes for it but I can't remember when I saw anything so maddeningly crummy in every aspect, writing-direction-acting.
I didn't realise until yesterday that this was written and directed by Huck Botko and Andrew Gurland, who wrote The Last Exorcism. That was a well-realised use of the faux-documentary style. Well thank God they didn't direct that because they really fumble the ball. A cursary look on IMDB, shows they're not majorly prolific but experienced enough to know better than to give the camera to the untrained people and you could successfully argue that, that is the asthetic; of boys making these shoddy YouTube clips but it doesn't add anything since this is a film not an Internet meme, it just seems miserly. Probably the most dreary aspect of the film is the writing. I'll admit that it did almost hoodwink me into believing that it was real and it was based on fact but the story is so unreal that it seems overdrawn.  I guess I thought it was too outrageous not to be true. It's about a kid trying to lose his virginity but the 2 main characters are step brothers and the youngest was adopted by the family when his mother died despite the parents only being work colleagues. Oh and his estranged father is a drug addict. Was that all necessary? Parents should be used sparingly in teen movies because after a while you start to question the logic of how they kids can keep boozing and partying if they're frequently in the background.
I guess that's if I wanted to give the film any credit (and I don't..), I'd have to say that these guys are totally believable as a tightknit group and they know each other better than they do in reality but that's as much as The Virginity Hit gets. I guess these 2 step brothers are supposed to remind me of Michael Cera and Jonah Hill but ones too insipid to be like Cera and the other is too abrasive to be like Hill. At no point do like or even respect the people who are carrying the film. It's just unremitting torture thrown in the one guy and the other one is just 100% unredeemably vile. So don't even watch this film for a bet. It's horrific.

I watched The Virginity Hit (2010) on DVD via LoveFilm.
My 2011 in Movies will return with Appaloosa (2008)...

Submarine (2010)

When I found out Richard Ayode was making a teen movie in Swansea, i felt one of those pangs of 'That should be me. I should be Ayode's represention on screen'.  He would mentor me in the ways of style and comedy and tell his secrets and what his sister-in-law Billie Piper was like.
Obviously that didn't happen but I've been excited to see his directorial debut for a while. Apart from writing and comedy genius, he's been blessed with a strong directorial style too. Any review of Submarine that casts allusions to Wes Anderson is kinda short sighted. As much as I love the prospect of any new Wes Anderson films, he doesn't own the rights to precociousness!
Submarine is a funny-funny sweet film that will haunt my dreams with thoughts that if I looked like a cute 15yo Alex Turner, me and Ayode would be like *that*. That's unfair to the kid in the main part of Oliver cos he good and funny and delightful. And the girl who played the pyromanic schoolgirl object of his desire is as infatuation-worthy as it's permissable for a 27yo me to get away with saying. She's like a valleys Ramona Flowers (You like that don't you?)  Rounding out parts of Oliver's parents, Noah Taylor and Sally Hawkins are great and good. Taylor gets to use his Australian accent for once as this unintentionally cool dad and Sally Hawkins plays Oliver's mother exactly as i imagine one of my friend's mum would be like. Paddy Considine turns up as a spiritualist and as much as I love him in the capacity that he had the capacity to be that amazing Best of British actor, he goes too broad in this.
In hindsight, i would have guessed Ayode would have tried to make something more ambitious for his first feature, i mean Darkplace is a fairly elaborate concept (a faux doc/tv show based on the writing of a faux horror author) but maybe that's where a lot of guys out of tv or music videos (Ayode being a student of both) fall down. Maybe this was the best way to start his features career before he makes the Marenghi film of my dreams. (It'll never happen but a boy can dream.)
With Submarine, you're watching someone not really challenging himself... technically. I can't say i've ever seen him work so extensively on location or with proper actors and i guess none of his writing hitherto had been this precociousness; maybe that's what the exercise of Submarine was.
In any case he delivers on the promise of a beautifully-shot melancholy teen comedy set in Swansea (or Port Talbot) of all places... but I had full confidence he would; at no point did him making this seem like it would be a stretch for the kid. I mean Kaufmanesque is an Adjective that has been the noise around a lot of people especially Charlie Kaufmanesque but that's what I expect of Richard Ayode at this point but I take comfort in the fact with the success of Submarine under his belf, he'll come back with something far more experimental...

I watched Submarine (2010) at the cinema.
My 2011 in Movies will return with The Virginity Hit (2010)...

The Outlaw (1943)

After watching Scarface and Jane Russell's recent death, it seemed opportune to watch The Outlaw, Howard Hughes' tribute to Billy the Kid and BOOBS. The only things I knew about the film was from Scorsese's The Aviator- where Hughes, played by Leo DiCaprio has a hearing about the sexual content of the film. Not to be prudish but there is a major sexual undercurrent to the film. Not in a bad way, it quite impressive how Hughes creates that sort of tension without any nudity or undress at all.  Of course, when i say undress - I mean underwear. Jane Russell probably wasn't even wearing any underwear and I would be prepared to testify to that. I feel like that would be a subject on was educated enough to speak on having seen The Outlaw. Besides that you'd have to be supremely puritanical to find anything seedy about this film. It's crazily good natured for a western. It's not particularly violent. If anything it's rather queer and silly. Now whoa-whoa-whoa - not the modern parlence of queer, but the classic use of queer: 'a strange or unconventional from the average viewpoint' although it does pretty queer towards the end. Like really queer.
Where was I? Yeah so, this film is not conventional in its conventions at all.  The soundtrack is about 5seconds ahead of the action in the film. I was watching this on IPlayer- I thought the streaming was out of sync. Since its a western, as expected there are showdowns aplenty but Hughes defuses any tension by making intensional funnys accompanied by a kazoo solo.
Despite these factors, you enjoy The Outlaw because it's a bit kooky when it should be tense because you've seen a million Westerns that play like that and in the end,  they all pretty much run together after a while. Hughes realised this on the making and saw no harm; he's knew and respected that John Ford type jawn but wanted to go another way and no, it doesn't play in the way he'd hoped but i'm sure the 2nd World War 2, there was nothing like this around but it still hold up 70years later to look at and watch due to charm and fun.
Like Jane Russell's BOOBS.

Legacy: Black Ops (2010)

Idris Elba. How many chances can only give you? I'm running out of ways to apologise to myself for watching this shot that ain't you being Stringer Bell in The Wire. In a way it wouldn't be so bad if you hadn't been so prolific since The Wire.
I feel like a bad parent; I've supported you despite letting me down. The best thing that you've been in since was that Fatal Attraction Beyonce movie and all you did was pose and be stoic like you were modelling for the cover of Jet magazine. I'll concede that your copy show Luther was gleefully dumb but not your finest hour.
If this continues i'm gonna be left with the conclusion available- that it was all downhill to The Wire writing staff and nothing to do with you.
Article 13th in this damning condemnation is Legacy: Black Ops. Which is like a shittier redux of The Manchurian Candidate than the Denzel version, which itself was 8417 Shit Street, Shittington, Surrey. First off its budget. Not in the delightful 'lets-put-on-a-show' way but the 'no effort-why sweat the details' way. Which is not to say that writer/director Thomas Ikemi isn't interested in making a visually interesting film but I don't know of you can make a film about Black Ops soldiers set in a dingy room. Maybe you can, but this guy can't.
The acting is alright I guess. Clarke Peters (Lester Fremon from The Wire) pops up but I once you get over that reunion there's nothing else to hang your hat on.  Elba isn't horrible playing this unsettled grizzly Gump grunt but I'd love to know why he wanted to produce this catastrophe? The script is half baked and where it isn't- it's stolen from other better films. It sad to be so negative about it.  But it's too boring to be exciting, too nonsensical to care. I'll tell you what it reminded me of a bad theatre-to-tv adaptation; like where the actors are acting for theatre instead of tv and the sets are unconvincing and everybody seems a bit too intense and shouty.  I'll bet it never even occurred to Ikimi to try his piece out like that. Maybe cos he was afraid of the immediate reaction.  Like I say I don't like tagging on independent film but this is a no.  Bad Idris Elba.
Oh yeah. Your Twitter is shit too...

I watched Legacy: Black Ops (2010) on BluRay via LoveFilm
My 2011 in Movies will return with The Outlaw (1943)

Easy A (2010)

There was quote that I've carried around since I heard it from the great comedienne Amy Poehler, who was asked if it could be possible to make a female equivalent of Superbad and she said that all you had to do was change the names from Jack to Jill, basically. I'm not sure but I think Easy A would be the somewhat that movie. I mean I really love Superbad-its the film is wanted to see when I was 15, probably earlier. It's dirty and heartfelt, and funny and sad. I guess that's why I think Easy A is similar, it's all those adjectives too but it's a lot more subtle, more chaste, more romantic. Girlier then.(On a side-note, a 15 cert is way too high for this film, BBFC-12 would be a better fit.)
The other prize both films share is Emma Stone, who it goes without saying I had a massive crush on since Superbad. I always hoped she would get her own movie and now she has. In fact, she has to carry the whole movie. If you didn't like her, then the movie would be scrubbed and she hasn't really made that many films but of course you fall in love with her, she's smart and strong and cute. But there's also a great cast of fingers like Thomas Haden Church, Lisa Murrow and Patricia Clarkson and Stanley Tucci, who play the girl's parents. They don't get much time in the film; not as much as you'd like but they're so good; you just love them too.
But it's full of young talent too like Dan Byrd and Amanda Bynes. I've been a massive Amanda Bynes fan for so long too, since The Amanda Show on Nickleodeon. She's been so unlucky in catching breaks in her career. It just goes to show how much timing has to do with success.
But anyway this is the Emma show and she's consistently good but you have to give writer Bert V. Royal his dues. He's written a funny and broad parable about teenage sexuality and virginity. I don't think it's one of the best because I like dirtier teen movies-this is too broad for me but I made me think that girls would love this and how I want them to throw the Twilight away and watch this!
Yeah, this is a better take on a young woman's most sacred gift. It's not about the act itself but the aftermath and what it means when a young girl starts being sexual, realising what makes you feel powerful and what makes you feel uncomfortable.
That's why Easy A was such a sleeper hit- it's light and likeable, very funny but there's a lot of heart and sensitive.

Lonely Hearts (2006)

Sheesh.  At this point, I've seen so many shitty John Travolta movies- I brace myself when I'm about to watch the ones I may have a passing interest in. Don't get me wrong; he's not incapable of turning in good work and he has charisma out the ying yang but maybe it's the parts he picks. Or maybe he thinks playing the sullen ham family man is the way to address any role... It is rare for him to be in anything that goes straight to video though like Lonely Hearts did. I mean I was curious but I don't even remember putting this on the ol' LoveFilm list and when i saw it was coming I was a bit let down but I thought I'd give it a shot since I knew Jim Gandolfini was it as was Salma Hayek.
But I'm happy to announce that this is unfortunately one of those poor movies that has slipped into the cracks and was unfortunately buried but is quite watchable and entertaining. Jared Leto and Hayek play a pair of murderous con artists who prey on lonely women. Travolta and Gandolfini play the cops on their case.  Of the four, Hayek wins but her character's nutso, so her part of the script is a bit more chest and Leto is pretty good as this nefarious duplicitous shallow crim. Travolta and Gandolfini do varying degrees of Vince Vega and Tony Soprano, characters they've been caning since the 90's. I mean like Gandolfini but it's telling when you think you're watching a great actor but he keeps repeating the same schtick in every other thing.
The real surprise here though is the writer and director, Todd Robinson. A man who certainly paid his eyes in Hollywood writing and doing other work, I'm guessing he got the directing high based on the strength of the script he turned in not to mention the talent involved. It's a good strong script based on strong dialogue and good characters; I've given a gilb synopsis of the story but it's really a good example of this sort of thing. All thecharacters are well drawn and the story's not predictable. But Robinson really succeeds in aquitting himself directing too considering he's filming 'period'. I can't imagine filming something in period first time out of the gate-so many possible disasters!
But unfortunately in this case, the spoils do not go to the victory and since, Robinson hasn't his name to much else since Lonely Hearts but he'll never be out of work, so he has that and when this comes on a 11pm on BBC One on a Wednesday...  do the right thing and give this some of the attention it missed. Lonely Hearts deserves some love.

I watched Lonely Hearts ( 2006) on DVD,  via LoveFilm.
My 2011 in Movies will return with Covert:Black Ops (2010)...

The Edge of Love (2007)

I didn't ever imagine it would have the patience to watch this film. I dislike the ponderous nature of Dylan Thomas, who in my opinion losses his talent upI against whatever wall he was propping himself upon. Somehow this isn't really that much about him and more a love triangle with 4th people. Love square? Hmm not sexy enough... Love Rhombus? Love Trapezium? It's pretty despite what I would falsely concieve as a shitty cast. I don't know how but I seem to be discovering all these films were normally shitty actors can act... The Edge of Love is like a bonanza of this. It's 3 leads are actors i've frequently wondered how they got so far. Kiera Knightly has been so-so in most things but she's great in this film and Sienna Miller is another one. Her acting party piece is weighty manic depression bit (she used it in Alfie) and she uses it to good effect here as Caitlin Thomas, my sister's namesake. And not to be unpatriotic but where the hell did Matthew Rhys come from? I don't remember him being on television before he was doing movie like Ioan. Well he's doing tv now! Sorry. No, he aquits himself pretty well as Dylan Thomas-surprisingly so, to the point you forget.
And it's beautiful to look at too, John Maybury has managed to make West Wales look like Tahiti in some panoramic shots; the style and ambition of the film bely its likely modest budget, i mean there's even a warfare sequence that Keira Knightly's other love interest in the film, Cillian Murphy gets to be in. I don't know how long he spent thinking about making this film and visualizing it but it is a great job. Another pleasant surprise I was not expecting. And the story drags after the halfway point but it's so striking to watch in the first half that you almost forgive it...

I watched The Edge of Love (2007) on BBC IPlayer
My 2011 in Movies will return with Lonely Hearts (2007)...

Police, Adjective (2009)

Police, Adjective has been a major victim of my lack of patience or time these days. I have literally stated to watch this film 3times but it's made me dose off, very rapidly afterwards. I don't want to lay this on the filmmakers; it's just failing to suffer my sleepiness. I don't want to say it's a boring film but... many chances can I give it?  Okay that is unfair but I'm just saying that this is a film that does require a bot of concentration. It's very stoic and narrow in its focus. It takes a long time for things to happen and when they do, it's fairly understated.

I watched Police, Adjective (2009) on DVD, via LoveFilm.
My 2011 in Movies will return with Lonely Hearts (2007)...

The Adjustment Bureau (2011)

I don't know if this ever happens to you but do you ever watched something but not understand why you don't like it? The Adjustment Bureau was just one of those situations. Matt Damon and Emily Blunt are good and they have great chemistry; I didn't doubt that they were in love for a second.  It has a great cast including Terrence Stamp and John Slattery. So it's not that. It looks pretty good too. George Nolfi, a screenwriter by trade aquits himself pretty well in a debut which is not afraid to move around very quickly in its New York setting, looks like a perfectly well-made.  No problem there.
And this is a good strong story adapted by Nolfi, which I'd imagine he had to redraft so many times until it made simple sense and here it's tight enough to bounce a penny on. I mean,  I'm sure that the original Philip K. Rick story made sense also but could understand how you fall into a trap of focusing on Dick's minutiae and detail. What I'm trying to say is that Nolfi takes a complex story and streamlined it down to all you need to know about the sci-fi dynamics. That gives him the opportunity to focus on the love story at the heart of the matter. And it's a great concept for sci-fi, this story of love and and fate;where if there's no free will and everything is planned, how do you explain attraction and curiousity?
This is the point where I try to spit it out like a child who's tasted something bitter, making an 'idontlikeit' face, scraping my tongue with my teeth. Okay I went a bit far there but i'm still not sure why I didn't like it. It kinda just left me cold.
It's not soooo predictable but nothing happens in this film that you don't expect. There some mild peril, they come together, they're separated, they come together again, they're separated again, yadda, yadda, yadda. This is terrible issue to take but... maybe it's too well made. Actually there's a bit that covers this on the film where the political candidate, played by Damon, reveals his image is so micro-managed for his electoral bid, that even if shoes were scuffed enough that he didn't look like a banker to the lower classes and not too scuffed that he looked lower class to bankers; only difference is that this film isn't scuffed enough. It's strange to watch sci-fi and not have questions about the scientific dynamics but feel like, 'yep, i perfectly understand the rules of the macguffin at play here.  I have no questions.'
I hope you've gathered in bear the people involved in this film no ill will. Everybody does a good job basically. But I remember just being bored by it once I understood what the science stuff was and realised it was going to play out as perfectly as if the Adjustment Bureau had planned it themselves...

I watched The Adjustment Bureau (2011)  at the cinema.
My 2011 in Movies will return with Police, Adjective (2010)

Hall Pass (2011)

I didn't really like going to the cinema before the age of 10. I think it made me feel agrophobic or something but I distinctively remember that Dumb and Dumber being the first film I really needed to see just that picture of Harry and Lloyd having their hair cut (which I don't think was in the film). It was the reason I first bought Empire magazine just get whatever snippets of info about the film and Jim Carrey. I remember seeing it on Easter weekend when I was ten in the Odeon on Queen Street in Cardiff. And it was my favorite film for a long time.  And then when There's Something About Mary came out when I was 14, that my favorite movie. The Farrelly's had done it again.
I guess my point is that despite falling off thru the last decade, maybe out of nostalgia, They were important in forming what I love about comedy and movies that I'm really want the Farrellys to deliver these funny comedies cause I know how good they can be.
Guess what?
Somehow they've managed to do another one and it feels so good!
There was a point half way through where I was literally crying in laughter.
I'm not saying it's the best comedy of the year or close to the Farrellys 1st films but it's a lot of fun to watch.
I think to be fair, making a broad comedy about marital infidelity would be like walking a tightrope in terms of keeping the tone light. You don't want these guys to cheat on their wives of visa-versa; not that I'm suggesting that we think they will- Hall Pass is as predictable as you'd expect not that that's a diss and I don't think you'd get away with it if you didn't love these soldiers played by Owen Wilson and Jason Sudekis. I love Sudekis on this.  He's amazing on Another though I feel he gets too much attention on there but that's a good problem.  In this his brand of misplaced confidence is just delightful. You just know he's gonna have a great comedy career. We know I already love Owen Wilson and it's a bit jarring to see him look so dowdy or at least as dowdy as Owen Wilson could look. He's good here but he's like the straight man for Sudekis; in fact I think his character is the straightest main character in Farrelly Bros. movie. Even Ben Stiller characters in their movies have wierd or dark querks and Owen Wilson always has these facets to his character in all his movies... so yeah it's weird.
As you might hope, Stephen Merchant is great for the short time he's in it. As is JB Smoove. I think it's a litmus test for liking this movie if you find the idea of them being brothers-in-law funny. It's only mentioned in passing and they don't elaborate on it but the imaginary backstory just cracks me up. It's like they met Stephen at a dinner party and asked him to do 2days on the film and he just ad-lib'ed his own stuff and costume. I'm into it though.
The only thing that lets Hall Pass down is the wife parts. I don't know why but they've insisted on making it about these guys wives as well but when we go to them it drags the hell outta the movie. It's a nice idea but no expects the Farrelly Bros, of all people to cover the middle age female experience.
But most importantly, Hall Pass exceeded my small expectations and the Farrellys haven't done that for too long.  It's nice to have them back...

She's Gotta Have It (1986)

I've never really appreciated Spike Lee movies the way i've hoped it would in the same way, you feel shitty that you don't phone your Gran enough. I like Do The Right Thing but I can't think of any others; I remember the ones that felt like chores like The 25th Your or Bamboozled and stuff like Jungle Fever, Clockers and Inside Man that I didn't feel strongly about either way. But I wanted to see She's Gotta Have It costs maybe it's the amazing debut that people remember and forget all the other suitable come greenlight season.
And it turns out I was probably right. I think if said She's Gotta Have It is his best film, you might try to remind me of Do The Right Thing but although that film is bigger in its scope and message, i don't think it is as consistently as this film.
I really thought this was good.  It's just the typical strong debut that builds careers for auteurs; it's well written, it looks good, it's provocative and original.
It suffers from non actors or new actors in main roles but most debuts do and that's the only thing it suffers from.
Basically put, this a film about a girl who's shitty at commitment so much so she has 3 dudes on the go at once. But she's so amazing that the guys know about each other and she makes no bones (pun intended) about it and they just take it and stick around her. Not like they're happy about the situation, they all want to be her only guy but she's perfectly happy with 3guys. If he wanted to be technically correct he should have called it, She's Gotta Have Them.  Like I say, Spike's hilarious here and I guess the everyman-like suitor, Jamie is a great straight man,  great at reacting to Spike's character, Mars like '.. this guy!? '. The actor also has this great Paul Robeson look.
If you're looking for more bullshit pretencious opinion, I'd say Lee has made like an Afro-centric Godard film and I'm not just saying that because it's black and white but it's intimate and dialogue heavy like A Bout de Souffe (Breathless, to you noob).
It's fast but thoughtful, as sexy as it is funny- in terms of amazing cinematic debuts, it's one of the best. But for some reason, it has this great asset that the director Spike Lee hasn't really employed since... the actor Spike Lee.  But more than that Spike being funny and charming. It like people kept saying to him 'Spike, you were great in She's Gotta Have It' and he thought 'wow people like my acting too, i'll do some more in my other films' but dude,  you didn't stick with the funny. This is the Spike Lee show. Not many make a film and are the best actor in them.  Okay, Woody Allen and Orson Wells but still, it's a pretty private club...

I watched She's Gotta Have It (1986) on DVD, via LoveFilm.
My 2011 in Movies will return with Hall Pass (2011)...

Going The Distance (2010)

Going The Distance is a victim of its time and circumstance.
I would not hold it against you, if you said that this looked like a horrible prospect. We are in the midst of a sea of bawdy romcoms like Love and Other Drugs *spits*.  Films that feature dirty jokes and graphic sex almost with no emotional context.
This film's timing couldn't have been worse because I think it's alright but it's far and above any Katherine Heigl vehicle.
But maybe that's cos I like Drew Barrymore and Justin Long. I like them in their own movies, so them coming together to be a couple is a lovely thought to me.  The fact they had their own on-off relationship just must have made it easier from them.
Here the crux of the film is that this couple have trouble with their long distance relationship and can only see each other every 3months or so and how do you deal with that. Now like I say, I think these two leads are perfectly likable and have a real transparent affection for one another and I don't think this film would have left the runway, if they didn't. It's success or failure is squarely on their shoulders but they aquit themselves fine but more than that when the film delivers mushy lines like 'I love you' or 'I miss you so much I could cry',  you...  kinda buy it; you at least let it off since it's built up a bank of goodwill with you.
Another thing these movies trade on is dependable comedy actors for the background like Kristen Schaal, Jason Sudekis, Christina Applegate to name a few.  Now I don't mind this so much, I'm sure I've even watched a few film just based in the promise of these sort of appearances by great tv comedians but now I'm more annoyed that they should have their own movies. I'm secretly looking forward to seeing Sudekis in Hall Pass but we'll cross that bridge soon enough...
As much as I love swears and bad taste jokes, this film gets a bit salty at times and if I was being picky, it doesn't seems entirely necessary.
So I'm not saying that it's amazing or the best of anything but the romcom has always been the most dreary of genres generally; I won't say they're all bad and some are some of my favorite films but it's a pleasant bit of candy floss,  where no one kills a live squid and it reminds you 'gah, life's alright most of the time, yeah?'...


I watched Going The Distance (2010) on DVD, via LoveFilm.
My 2011 in Movies will return with Scum (1979) ...

Rope (1948)

I wonder what would have happened if Hitchcock and Don Simpson got together?  
Not that Hitch only made movies that you could describe on one sentence but Rope is one of the more brief concepts to sell-there's a party and the hosts have killed the guest of honour and he's actually in a box under the nibbles. Even if the cynical were say 'And that's a movie?', they would concede they were curious to see how that sustains a feature length.
The good news that Rope is a great way to spend 80mins. It's all killer-no filler. I even think it could be longer by a little bit but I recognise that it's more potent in its short form.
The best surprise of Rope is that it's brilliantly written and-AND acted. It has the great whippet-fast, witty dialogue so indicative of the 30's and 40's; great pearls of stuff like this:-
'Brandon's spoken of you'
'Did he do me justice? '
'Do you deserve justice?'
And ⅔'s of those lines were delivered by James Stewart. I'm no great watcher of his films but he's great here as this deadpan blackly-comic scholar. You may remember Farley Granger from Strangers on a Train; here he plays the complete opposite character- a disturbed young man with nervous murderous intent. His partner and dominating force in the relationship is played by John Dall,  who confusingly has a somewhat striking resemblance to Jimmy Stewart but he's a great malevolent force of undercurrent evil in this piece. He's just bad to the bone.  Both these guys have just killed for the thrill of killing, just to say they could and no better reason and the Farley Granger character is as complicit but you get the feeling that he's being lead by the John Dall character, who thinks he's too clever to get caught but still wants to rub his actions in people's faces to the point of inviting their victims family to the party(!) Needless to say, Jimmy Stewart's Columbo routine throws a spanner on the works these guys's plans.
Another reason why Rope is recognised is because it'll go 10-15mins without cutting; all the action takes place on the same set but it's pedantic to say why when it does make cuts(purely for changing film reasons, I'm sure), they seem like the least subtle, most obvious cuts you'll ever see but that might just be me.
But like I say, Rope is the real deal. A classic film, in every sense and not particularly dated in many ways.
I know Don Simpson wouldn't have liked the name Rope, he would have found that too subtle and i know he wouldn't have suggested 'Box' but i'm sure he might have been vying for 'Chest', maybe...


I watched Rope (1948) on DVD, via LoveFilm.
My 2011 in Movies will return with Going The Distance (2010)...

Private Road (1970)

I only wanted to watch this movie for one reason- Bruce Robinson. 
The man made one of the finest films ever made on Gort's grim Earth- Withnail And I, a love-letter to the male of the species and one of the funniest films ever made. Never met a person who didn't love it. 
This means that the man has earned my interest in anything he's made but unfortunately his writing and directing is not as prolific as one might hope, so that means I have to widen my search to anything he's been involved in. 
So when I saw that the BFI had released Private Road, on their forgotten curiosity home video label, BFI Flipside and that it starred Bruce- it peaked my interest.  Before directing, Robinson had been an actor in the 60's and 70's. He was in Zefferelli's Romeo and Juliet (where apparently the character of Uncle Monty was based on his own experiences with Zefferelli!)
In this movie, he shares the lead with Susan Penhaligon as a young couple in London, in the present-day (1970's) - learning how to live together and be all grown up and stuff. I'm sure even at the time, this concept had been done to death but this is a film of few resources- so the ramshackle nature of young life incidentally compliments the tone of the film. Like I say, it's a tale as old as time-will these two kids stick together in spite of their world and maybe this film was forgotten for because it doesn't have much to add to the formula but it's quite a light and charming watch, like a less ambitious Wed Anderson sorta thing; less stylised or comical. Incidentally it is funny how the way young people dressed in the early 70's is strikingly similar to how people dress in the early 2010's.
Susan Penhaligon is pretty good and delightful but I struggled to get past the idea that Bruce Robinson was acting well enough to necessitate him not spending that time write his future comedy masterpiece. I mean, yeah he was a cute good looking guy and passively, disarmingly charming buuuut he was no young Olivier and i have no right to say this but...  I think he did too. Hey, his best work was ahead of him. It's strange how bits of this film foreshadowed his later work like, there's a part where they go to the rural countryside, to a desolate house and they struggle to eat and kill their own food. Familiar? And then our your man goes to work in an advertising agency, pitching inane products like what's in How To Get Ahead In Advertising.
I don't usually talk about soundtracks but this film has a lovely collection of folksy songs running through it.  They date the film but in a good way; it reminds you sentiment of the time...  Private Road doesn't have much to say but it's very earnest about what it does. 
But then..  that's the youth for you...

I watched Private Road (1970) on BluRay via LoveFilm.
My 2011 in Movies will return with Rope (1948)...

Another Year (2010)

Mike Leigh films. There's something truly enigmatic about them. 
In an industry which is built on selling product, his films just sort of waft in and explore things you didn't really give much thought to before. There is literally no other country that would subsidise his sort of film-making. Even television would be wary because they almost defy being sold, they're dramas but nothing particularly salable
or taboo is happening; they're comic but not extraordinarily funny. They deal with romance but they're not romantic.
Under short-sighted scrutiny, they might seem unsuccessful endeavours but Mike Leigh gets to make movies based on the fact actors like working for him and extracts award winning performances out of them. But what is it that he does? How does he build these films?
It seems unlikely the way any other film-makers works; correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I understand it, he gets a company of a actors and without a script,  they workshop characters and scenes in a warehouse presumably for a few weeks and this goes on and off until he's ready to make the film. Like I say, don't hold me to that description but even if it is close to that...  Well, it's not for me to say it's strange but it's not average. In a way, I get that it's good for the actors in terms of knowing the characters better than any other characters they're likely to play; creating their own bespoke role, as it were but I sometimes get the feeling that the stories or plots miss a central conceit; something to move towards.
The closest thing to that in Another Year, is the idea of getting old and struggling with life and carve out a bit of happiness. There are 3 main characters- Mary, a sad lonely middle-aged woman and Tom & Jerri, a completely happy functioning married couple; just one of those solid married couples that just fit perfectly,  that know when to be there for their spouse and when they need their space.
As one might expect, Lesley Manville, Jim Broadbent and Ruth Sheen excel in these parts respectively.


I watched Another Year (2010) on DVD, via LoveFilm.
My 2011 in Movies will return with Private Road (1970)...

Unknown (2011)

Your first question is likely to be is this, Taken 2? 
Sadly, it is not. But is it any good at all then, you may possibly ask? Well I'll say... it would be great to come home to after a night out and see on ITV4 but under no circumstances should you attempt to watch Unknown UNLESS drunk; You'll be far too concerned with the concept of it making sense.
Good action thrillers have the giddying sense of making you feel high; making you scared or excited, producing testosterone prehaps(?)- bad ones just remind you of the good ones. I guess it's also like news. Good news means you could celebrate without even any booze - bad news just makes you want a drink...
I guess there is one fun things about this film- you can try to guess which of the German actors was the one who played Hitler from the movie Downfall and the Internet memes and there's another stupid bizarre bit where Neeson and Aiden Quinn have a wooden dialogue sing-off but...  beyond that it's not at all remarkable.  Speaking on the writing, it's like their commitment to stoic pulpy dialogue is such, you could have sworn it was even written on woodchip wallpaper.
I can't remember which movie i was talking about but I said in an earlier post that, that film was that sort of film Harrison Ford would make 20years ago- Liam Neeson makes these movies now like Taken, yes but also The A Team.  But thinking back to The A Team, that was a great recent example of an fun dumb action movie.  Forgettable? Entirely but I remember explosions and no ill will towards it.  My beef with this movie is that they just go further then is necessary with the story; I mean the concept is not that great-'guy loses his memory and finds no-one recognises him' but really the resolution to this film should be a lot simpler and the film-makers shouldn't have tried to be clever and come up with a smart ending because as much as I loved watching stupid people trying to be smart, stupid films labouring under the misconception that they can have a better pay-off is just horrible. I mean the ending of every episode of Doctor Who is the product of some macguffin that wasn't there in the 1st place and arrives in the last 5mins. Here the macguffin is something that completely exceeds your expectations of what the mystery was going to be and it's far too rich compared to the last 1hr of the film you just watched. Hold up. I don't. want anyone going to the trouble of watching this and I'm bothered I might be selling it as complex.  Don't think that. It's like eating a fish fingers and then being fed smoked salmon. It's still fish but it just don't sit right.


I watched Unknown (2011) at the cinema.
My 2011 in Movies continues with Another Year (2010)...

Shadow Of A Vampire (1999)

I love movies about making movies. 

This is the presumably fictional story of the making of F.W. Murnau's Nosferatu, I say presumably because the film is implying that Max Schreck, the actor that played Nosferatu was actually a vampire that made a deal with Murnau in exchange for the body of the leading lady. Like I say- I'm not convinced it's the strict truth. But I'm not one to say that'll get in the way of a good story; I guess what I found most interesting was how they made films at the turn of the 20th century, like all the technicians on set wore white coats and goggles, presumably to see the world in monochrome. I still don't understand why the white coats.

In hindsight, this film could have been the biggest battles of overacting in film- it features John Malkovich, Willem Defoe, Eddie Izzard, Cary Elwes and the big dog of over-acting himself, Udo Kier. That's no diss to it- I love overacting but sadly it doesn't degenerate into that on this film. Sadly, it appears like Malkovich got a bit shouty and everyone else backed off. There are points where Kier looks at Malkovich like 'Chilllll John, do you want my lunch money? Take it but i'm on a fixed income over here. There's enough movie to go around for everyone, John... 'nough movie to go around for everyone'. Udo Kier being the voice of reason in a movie is like going to an air show and leaving without seeing a plane crash- remarkable but disappointing.
I kid. But if anything you'd have to say there's too much talent in this film and no one really survives a scene with El Malkovich. I mean he's good but like I say..shouty. and I know he's playing a hit on drugs but we don't do the 'I'm crazy cos I'm on drugs' bit anymore. You must have missed that day at Steppenwolf.
But Cary Elwes and Izzard almost make a mark, especially Elwes with his ubermensch haircut and Willem Defoe is petty good as this creepy vampire. It's good to see a non-schmexy vampire- I've never understood how humanoid-leechs, could be considered sexy but I know I'm missing the point.
In a strange turn up and not because It's particularly good though it's fairly watchable- i'd say It's too short. I know I said that if I said a movie was top short it would be high praise but I think the concept is worth more then 75mins.


I watched Shadow Of The Vampire (1999) on BBC IPlayer.
My 2011 in Movies continues with Unknown (2011)...

A Fistful Of Dynamite (1972)

One of my great discoveries in movies last year was Sergio Leone. 
I think my late arrival at that party had to do with the fact I don't like westerns that much and my introduction to him was watching Once Upon A Time in America, a film you will either lovelovelove or hatehatehate. But on watching A Fistful Of Dollars, I just fell in love. If and hopefully when I teach a class in film...  A Fistful Of Dollars would be the film I would say has that best use of time and pacing in any film. In any case,I sought out his other westerns soon after; he basically made westerns for people who don't like westerns. They're fast, exciting and dangerous. I know westerna are supposed to be like that, his movies are like John Wayne pictures on steroids. But steroids with BIG BALLS, guero! He also changed how action films were made.  Yes, there were close-ups and violence in movies before but it never looked as stylish as A Fistful Of Dollars. Any action director who doesn't count him as an influence is lying. Obvious imitators would be Rodridgez and Tarantino but even guys like Walter Hill and if I may be so bold, Scorcese and De Palma.
But back to the matter in hand... Which is a better name for a film-  A Fistful Of Dynamite or 'Duck You Sucka'? Hmmm. I fear in this one, I'mma say A Fistful Of Dynamite but that just cos I like fire and explosions; I would take the time to watch anything called 'Duck You Sucka' and be glad for the opportunity; in any case, 'Duck You Sucka' was the original title-Dynamite came later presumably cos the other title may have been confusing.
Not confusing is the story of this film; It's basically the story of a pretty dumb Mexican criminal with his Dickensian-style child gang of thiefs and murderers and this former Irish terrorist/current explosives expert, played by James Coburn.  The Mexican gang-leader played Rod Steiger is half Brando-half Buddy Hackett. Probably more Brando than Hackett but he so flaming schlubby and surly yet he is full of charm and magnetism; strangely he also looks like Sergio Leone but he's brilliant in this. I don't think Coburn is as good, but this character is a lot more straight anyway; not as fun to play. Also, and this is in no way his fault but when ever Leone does a flashback to him in Ireland, they're just so homoerotic, for lack of a better word. They're shot in slo-mo and it's him spending tube with his best friend and a girl but no one's paying any attention to the girl. It's... It's strange cos I know that that's not subtext that's meant to be there.
Apart from that, my only beef is that it's too long at 2hrs 30mins; I think there enough going on and it's not boring but I don't think it warrants that long. But it is pretty great, some of the most amazing explosions ever seen and it is a lot of fun to watch.


I watched A Fistful of Dynamite (1972) on DVD, via LoveFilm.
My 2011 In Movies will return with Shadow Of A Vampire (1999)...

The Last Exorcism (2010)

There's nothing I hate more than spiritualists or mediums; the idea of anyone exploiting sensitive peoples emotions just sickens me. 
Some might say it's a white lie that puts people's minds at rest and while i'm a strong advocate of telling white lies that put people's minds at rest, I've never asked anyone to pay me for the privilage.
It should also be mentioned at this point, the fact I'm not a big watcher of horror films. Of the big genres, I give horror the least attention and need a big pull to make me watch. I am also a big fraidy cat.
So all in all, this might make watching The Last Exorcism seem like a foreign prospect. Maybe I'm expecting 2wrongs to make a right...
I had little interest in this film until I saw clips that showed it was about a self proclaimed religious shyster, a character that was showing the tricks of performing an exorcism. Yeah so i knew it was going to get spookier as it proceded like 'Hold up-i didn't do that... that was real' sorta thing but the initial concept was good enough ignite my interest.
Like I say I'm no horror movie scholar but I thought this was perdy darn good. I understand that over there in horror movies, they have a problem with character development. Mainly cos they might not be sticking around for too long... but that's no excuse guys-ya gotta make well defined characters y'all or your audience won't care about anything that happens to them. Anyway, the makers of The Last Exorcism have great characters especially our protagonist- Cotton, the cynical preacher and exorcist. Cynical characters can be a tough sell- making someone likeable when he's essentially a party-pooper but Cotton is quite accessible. He just comes across as a guy who messes around with religion to feed his family and it appeals to his need to perform. I noticed that when Cotton is performing, it's much like watching improv- like his art is just preparation and reacting legitimately to what people say to him.
But then again maybe the protagonist is the camera; this shot like a documentary, that a documentary crew are following Cotton so we see everything in the first person. Everyone is aware that there is a camera on them so when they go to perform this exorcism in rural Americana, we watch people initially react to it and slowly relax and also members of the film crew become part of the story- I appriciate that as one of the things that bugs me about 'reality'- media is you never see those parts like how people react to that crew and visa-versa. This has a great story and it's not predicable either. I'd love to say this was one of the great faux-documentries but there are so many
great faux-documentries; i love that genre but surfice to say this is better than Blair Witch in everyway. Except scarier. But I don't like scary movies...


I watched The Last Exorcism (2010) on DVD, via LoveFilm.
My 2011 In Movies will return with A Fistful of Dynamite (1972)...

After The Thin Man (1936)

Sequels. The best ones are like a comfy warm duvet. I don't think I've seen a film stick to the program like After The Thin Man. 
Basically the gangs all here, the two leads Nick and Nora Charles are back, played pitch perfectly by William Powell and Myrna Loy; its still written by , the same people who wrote the original adaptation, from the Dashiell Hamnett book and W.S Van Dyke is still calling shots from one of those oversized megaphones they had back in the 30's... probably. There was only 2years between the making of this movie.
But the main attractions here are Powell & Loy and the script. The boozy couple continue in revelling in their barbed but loving dialogues, particularly Powell. The epitome of a Nick Charles line was "Hmmm Scotch...
I think?"
So Nick and Nora are back on the case, this time investigating the disappearance of Nora's cousin in law. All the scenes without Nick and Nora become all-of-sudden quite boring; my only criticism. They must be one of the most watchable couples in movie history. Their chemistry is out-of-this world.

Jackboots On Whitehall (2010)

I surprised more people haven't made film using marionette puppets.
It seems very unreasonable to call Jackboots On Whitehall, a British Team America but I just know that description is how they raised money and talent for this film. It kinda fits it though- they're tonally very similar, very irreverent and jingoistic in their humor of toffee-nosed Brits, sex-mad French and idiot sycophantic Germans.
It would be a noose for any film trying to follow that Stone/Parker extravaganza but the MacHenry Bros, the makers of Jackboots on Whitehall have so much fun playing with old wartime British stereotypes, it's contagious and why let what really happened during the 2nd World War 2, get in the way?
This story takes place in an England where the British troops get stranded in Dunkirk and the Nazis have tunneled under the channel to conquer Britain and the only soldiers available are Home Guard and a few Indian soldiers.
Just like Team America.. maybe even more so, there are some moments where you think this puppetry is so dumb... and then you'll find yourself wondering how they made it look so good with aeroplane shots and the like. And even when it does look a little shaky with these plastic dolls, you just respect all the effort these guys have out into making it like a homemade charm But then they have this great voice cast featuring Ewan MacGregor and Timothy Spall as Churchill; there's Macnulty playing the token Yank in Enger-land.
I just know that its destined to be an underground classic; It's real fun to watch and silly-more light hearted than Team America, less cynical and satirical but that's not meant negatively. I should have gotten more of a chance at the cinema but video is where a lot of these films are born...