Review of the Year - 2010

New films watched – 62

At the cinema – 32

At home – 30

 

Average score – 7.25

 

Best Films of the Year

At the cinema:

1^st Inception

2^nd The Hurt Locker

3^rd The Social Network

 

At home:

1^st The Lives of Others

2^nd In the Loop

3^rd Gran Torino

 

Films that let the side down:

At the cinema:

1^st Salt

2^nd Eat Pray Love

3^rd She’s Out of My League

 

At home:

1^st Lesbian Vampire Killers

2^nd Horsemen

3^rd Public Enemies

 

(I have just realised that I watched all three of those cinematic let downs with the same friend. 
Oh dear.

To be fair though, I did also see two of the top three with that same person.)

 

Looking at the list of disappointing films on that list there are a couple of things I should note: 1 – I don’t like traditionally ‘girly’ films.  2 – At least with Eat Pray Love I knew that the reviews had been bad and would never have watched it had the film we wanted to see been available.  Sometimes I go to the cinema knowing that a film is bound to be terrible but there is a part of me that wants to see just how bad it can get.

 

So just how bad can it get?  Well, I watched one film this year that truly lowered the bar, the standard and, indeed, the tone.  Step forward Lesbian Vampire Killers.  A film I reviewed as “an insult to lesbians, vampires and killers everywhere”.  It got a whopping 2/10 from me. 

Meanwhile Salt was by far the worst thing that I saw at the cinema.  It was laughably bad, insultingly stupid and the point where (MINOR SPOILER) Angelina Jolie disguised herself as a man (END MINOR SPOILER) was just ridiculous.  There came a point about halfway through the film where someone reading their iPhone (something that generally irritates me to the point of rage) became more entertaining.

 

As foreign films went it was a good year for Scandinavian films with A Somewhat Gentle Man, Let the Right One in, Super Brother and Rare Exports all scoring well.  A Somewhat Gentle Man was my favourite film at the London Film Festival and I thought Let the Right One in was a touching adaptation of a book I had really enjoyed (and, I will admit, been terrified by).

 

There are still a number of 2010 films that I need to catch up with:

Another Year

Monsters

Catfish

Of Gods and Men

Then we’re into 2011 releases and the best thing about January?  Oscar-bait season!   Bring on The King’s Speech, Black Swan, 127 Hours, Never Let Me Go, True Grit…..

 

I can’t wait!

Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale

“They’re defrosting him”

My friend Chris: not big on Christmas.  Proper bah-humbuggy in fact.  So as his this-is-not-a-Christmas-present-I-just-chose-this-time-of-year-to-thank-you-for-your-friendship gift I surprised him with a trip to see Rare Exports as a fairly anti-Christmas treat.

The set-up is as follows:

Santa is not who you think he is.  He is far keener on punishing the naughty children than in rewarding the good.  A young boy, Pietari, gets it into his head that the man behind the myth is about to be released from his mountain prison and sets about protecting his house and trying to persuade the locals that he is not just a kid with an excellent imagination.

I was expecting a horror movie but instead it is much more of a kid’s adventure story.  Pietari is the leader of the crusade against Santa and his story is very much the centre of the film.  The plot is fairly simple (taken from two YouTube shorts: Rare Exports Inc and The Official Rare Exports Inc Safety Instructions) and even at 83 minutes it feels a bit lightweight for the length but, that being said, there are many element of this film that made it a very enjoyable watch.  The richness of the cinematography makes every close-up/slow motion shot/extended zoom worth watching and the lighting is used to great effect in the frozen wilds of Finland.  The score is also excellent with soaring boy sopranos and lush strings playing off against fairly sparse scoring elsewhere.  The film is very comedic – almost every moment I expected to be frightening turned out to be a lead up to a witty punch line – and the script is played beautifully by the small cast.  Onni Tommila as Pietari has one of the cutest faces I have ever seen and he gives an excellent performance as the little boy facing his fears.

A bit lightweight but enjoyable and witty – 7/10

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One

“They are coming”

 

I‘ll start this by saying that I love the Harry Potter books.  Really love them.  Queued up at midnight for book 7 love them.  So I am always aware that the films are not quite going to live up to the novels and try to judge them accordingly.

 

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One, or Harry Potter and The Darkest Film Until Part Two Comes Out, does pretty well at transferring the action from page to screen.  However, it does not quite succeed in carrying the emotional content over with it.

The book drips with a slow build of tension.  The first part of the book (away from Hogwarts) takes so long that you, along with the characters, almost forget what the point of it all is.  As tends to be the case, the film makes this episode look like it passes in about three weeks.  This in turn makes each turn of events seem much easier to come by and loses the sense of urgency that creeps in when something big happens.  It is funny that one of my friends said that the film dragged a lot and yet I felt that it needed to drag more in order to really achieved the slowly wilting optimism that JK so wonderfully conveys in the novel.

This sense of urgency is vital to the drive the emotional journey of the characters.  The moment in the book when the Death Eaters attack the wedding is a truly spine-chilling moment exactly because you have seen all of the build up to the day and really settled into life with the Weasleys and this opportunity for a happy event despite the terror encroaching further upon them with every moment that passes.  In the film there is barely any time to see the wedding before it is being ripped apart.  Also missing is the sense that Dumbledore is no longer a trustworthy source of information for Harry.  He spends much of the book severely doubting his beloved mentor and this is never even mentioned in the film.  And then there is the moment when Ron disapperates from the camp in the forest (the most horrifying part of the book - but that's probably just me...).  This means that he can never come back once Harry and Hermione m ove on as the collection of spells that they cast to avoid detection will also create a barrier that will keep Ron at bay, but there is no real feeling that this is the case in the film.  Ok, so Hermione is clearly upset that he has gone, but there is no real indication that this is potentially the end of his part in the journey.  I know that most people who watch the films will have read the books and know the outcome of this situation but they could have tried a bit harder at conveying the finality of Ron’s decision.  Even on my second reading of the novel my heart sunk at the moment he went so I think they should have been able to make more of this in the film.

 

Criticisms aside I think that the film does do its best with the source material.  The action scenes are creative and blisteringly edited and the animation used for the story of the Deathly Hallows is absolutely beautiful.  The trip into the Ministry of Magic is particularly well handled with a terrific performance from Peter Mullan and good comic moments mixed with emotional scenes and high tempo action.  The cinematography and production design are gorgeous in the portrayal of the two different magical worlds – Malfoy Manor is wonderfully bleak and darkly gothic and the various places that Harry, Ron and Hermione set up camp are at once vast and claustrophobic.

 

Emma Watson is much improved as Hermione.  Her tendency to over-emote has been (somewhat) reduced and she delivers a touching performance.  The addition of the scene in which she erases her parents’ memories lends real weight to her repetition of the spell in the café in central London.  (That being said, she is still a rubbish shouter).  Dan Radcliffe is as solid as ever but Rupert Grint, as is usually the case, comes out on top once again in this film.  He has always been the strongest of the main three youngsters and is certainly the most capable when it comes to emotional range (and having a good old shouting match).

 

My final remark has to be on something I am finding truly difficult to justify: the addition of that awkwardly odd dance routine.  I can see what they were trying to achieve - a lightening of the tension and an opportunity to see the real bond between Harry and Hermione - but, to be horribly honest, it’s not like they’d really succeeded in building a huge amount of tension in the first place and I couldn’t help feeling that, after deciding to split the film in two so as not to lose any major plot elements, this was an entirely unnecessary use of time when they had dropped other, more frightening/interesting, key moments from the book.

 

All in all a pretty good addition to the filmic world of HP and a fun watch but lacking in urgency – 7/10

Less Adverts - More Trailers

Since when did the trailer spot at the cinema become just another time to advertise your product?

During my recent 3 cinema weekend I noticed a (new?) trend for slipping adverts into this, in my eyes, ‘sacred’ time.  First we got an advert for advertising at the cinema which was pretty badly received indicating just what a poorly judged advert it is.  We were then treated to an all-in-one trailer for Autumn Cinema, a collection of blink-and-you’ll-miss-it clips from a number of different productions due for imminent release.  While I can see what this advert is trying to achieve I’m just not thrilled to see it take the place of a full length individual trailer.  Finally we have the Orange advert, ‘cunningly’ disguised as a trailer for Gulliver’s Travels.  These Orange ads used to be a lovely little separate entity but now they are just another threat to my beloved trailers.  
My main complaint is that the adverts have just finished.  I sat through them all.  I did my bit.  Why, when we finally get to the good stuff do you hit me with more adverts?  I’m especially annoyed by adverts in cinema advertising the cinema.  I’m here!  You’re preaching to the converted!

Please bring back my trailers.

Somewhere

“Who is Johnny Marco?”

 

Well, it would appear that Johnny Marco is a man of few words and many women, an actor (a good one?  Maybe we’ll never know) living in a hotel and not really doing much.  Marco is a man with too much spare time and not much to fill it, a drifting personality in a crazy world of lull and rush.

 

Sofia Coppola’s new film once again examines human foibles through the generation gap – this time a father and daughter – but she does so this time round in a film where, honestly, nothing happens.  I remember some people complaining about this about Lost in Translation, Coppola’s beautiful, sparse, Tokyo-set film, and I would advise those people not to see Somewhere.  Even less happens.  But even less happens in a truly beautiful way.  The casting is spot on and the performances are a joy to watch.

I think that Coppola has come very close to recreating the artist’s canvas on film.  Occasionally static camera work and extended scenes (Johnny playing the piano is an image that has remained in my mind) come together to make a placid film and considering the world in which the film is set, the pacing of the film is the complete opposite of what you might expect. 

Coppola has once again given us two wonderful people to observe.  Elle Fanning is terrific and I could have watched Stephen Dorff do nothing for much, much longer.  His face is so expressive and his character so flawed and sweet and, quite often, lost.  He lives in a world that is almost unrecognisable to us 9-5ers but even this doesn’t seem to be the point of the film.  There is no real emphasis - things happen, things don’t happen, people just exist.  There is no sudden huge plot development, there is no real dramatic intent; the film just contemplates a short period of a man’s life.

But it does so in such a beautiful way.  The more I think about the film the more I want to see it again.  It was relaxing and friendly (which seems a very strange thing to say about a film) and non-confrontational.  It made me feel comfortable (except for the scene where Marco’s head is encased to make a mould for his prosthetics.  That made me feel horribly claustrophobic) and drew me into Johnny’s life wonderfully.

 

Cool and calm.  Not one for viewers looking for a thrill – 7/10

A Somewhat Gentle Man

“Rolf, hug.”

 

Following his release from prison, Ulrik is trying to pick up the pieces of his life but is being held back by the people from his crime-ridden past.  In this excellent Norwegian black-comedy he tries to come to terms with who he is now and, more importantly, how he connects with those around him.

 

Hans Petter Moland has created a brilliant, laugh-out-loud comedy which plays a lot with what people don’t say and the silences that no-one wants to fill.  Populated with characters he describes as “really stupid people”, Moland has done wonders with Kim Fupz Aakeson’s fairly minimal script, dragging down the tempo of the actors to play up the awkwardness of the situations and the fact that people don’t seem to be conversing, just talking at one another.

There are so many excellent elements in this film, from the bleak location (it was shot one mile either side of the motorway in a run-down area of Oslo) to the awkward situation comedy that is rife throughout the picture.  Even the costuming is faultless, Moland describing it as people who have become stuck in the period when they thought they were at their best.  Clearly the 80s was a wonderful time for Jensen, the gang leader from Ulrik’s past.

The appearance of the local landscape appears to have rubbed off on the characters and everything and everyone looks more than a little shabby.  Even Jensen’s precious car isn’t quite what it used to be.  The grim surroundings only add to the humour – Ulrik’s first room outside Prison is as close to a cell as you could possibly want to imagine.  Ulrik’s new world is populated with places he can’t smoke and women he can’t avoid and it all seems suitably tired and drab.

The film is beautifully directed to emphasise the oddness of this world to Ulrik and Stellan Skarsgard plays him with quiet bemusement and the odd moment of gruffness.  He often appears to be an observer of this new life rather than a participant which makes the moments when he truly engages quietly moving.  The supporting characters are all brilliantly realised, especially Jorunn Kjellsby’s standoffish landlady, his new employer, Sven (Bjorn Sundquist) and the gang’s new boy, Rolf (Gard B. Eidsvold).

A Somewhat Gentle Man was, quite simply, the best film I saw at the LFF.

 

Down-to-earth and hilarious, I could watch it again right now – 9/10

Biutiful

“Months?”

 

Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu describes himself as “obsessed with life” and this hectic yet thoughtful feature covers, as in his previous, fragmented work, many facets of human life.  Javier Bardem plays, Uxbal, a man who discovers he has only a short time to live and tries to ensure a brighter future for his children, and assist the struggling friends he has met along the way.  His journey links together stories of immigration and his own difficult family situation.

 

Biutiful is a sprawling mess of a film and yet technically it is supremely efficient.  Inarritu’s team has excelled itself in terms of cinematography and lighting and the direction is well-paced; sporadic bursts of frenetic energy giving way to lingering scenes as Uxbal’s own energy wanes.

Maybe it is due to this efficiency that I was mainly unmoved by Uxbal’s circumstances.  There were certainly moments in the film that shocked me but there was a lack of rawness – despite the squalid conditions and desperate situations faced by the characters – once one of the major events had occurred.

Once again, Inarritu weaves together a triumvirate of narratives - this time connected by a single person rather than an event – and while he pulls the threads together well, it left me feeling very much like an observer; I did not feel an emotional connection to the story. 

Bardem’s performance is faultless, playing the part of the dying man with grace, humility and blasts of desperation and despair.  He is a man struggling to get things right in the short time he has left and you get a real sense of loss from him when he can’t quite fix things the way he wants.

The camera work in the film and the production design are all beautifully handled.  The audience is completely enveloped by the mix of characters and places that make up the story and there is a wonderful exploration of the geography of Uxbal’s life.  It is dark and grimy, not the kind of place you really want to be for long, but it is fully inhabited by the characters, who breathe life into this grim reality.

 

Technically impressive but lacking connection – 7/10

The Kids Are All Right

"Shut the front door"

The Kids Are All Right is the story of Jules and Nic, a lesbian couple with two kids from the same sperm donor, the affable Paul (the truly wonderful Mark Ruffalo).  On turning 18 their oldest child, Joni, is encouraged by her younger brother to look Paul up and so starts a strange new chapter in their family life.

In her post-screening Q&A Lisa Cholodenko recounted a conversation with friend Stuart Blumberg on how to make his films more personal and her own more commercial.  This lead to them sharing the writing credit on this film and I think they've hit the spot; The Kids Are All Right is a bright, witty tale infused with subtle performances and great situation comedy.

Mark Ruffalo pushes his natural ability to play ruffled, amiable and layed back to a new level and makes Paul on the one hand completely loveable and on the other frustratingly unfathomable.  As the film progresses it becomes more and more clear just how intrusive his presence has become simply because he doesn't understand that it is or why it would be.  Julianne Moore is impressive as the wayward Jules.  One of life's 'tryers', Jules has had a go at many things and not stuck at any of them and Moore plays her with a relaxed spirit that cuts beautifully against Annette Bening's more uptight Nic.  Nic is the breadwinner of the family, the committed doctor with a strong idea of where her family life should be headed, but this strength does not lend itself to much genuine empathy.  She tries her best to be a strong and understanding mother but it almost works against her.  The kids are in fact, more that all right - Mia Wasikowska is one of those actresses who, filmed from any angle, throws up a striking image on screen.  Her face is wonderfully expressive and I thought she was absolutely terrific.  Josh Hutcherson also makes the most of his part, fully exploring Laser's bemusement at his reaction to Paul and the impact that it has on his life.

Cholodenko has put together a well-polished film but I would have preferred it to be a little rougher around the edges.  It is all terribly clean but I think that comes from the aim to be slightly more commercial.  That being said, I loved the fact that there was no neat tying up at the end.  Each character continues to do their own thing and go their own way.  The script has enough confidence to let the characters stay themselves, to maintain their flaws, and this is the real strength of the picture.

Not quite as smart as it thinks it is but damn funny - 8/10

Brighton Rock

"I know what you want me to say.”

I start with a warning:

You may very well hate this film. This film may leave you feeling nonplussed, bored, frustrated. This film may disappoint you as a remake; you may consider it over-the-top and some of the acting hammy.

However, you may, like me, think that this is a very well put together thriller with a real star-making performance and all the unflinching tension one could wish for without leaving the cinema a complete wreck.

Reading the response to Brighton Rock when it debuted as the Surprise Film at the London Film Festival it was immediately clear that I was almost on my own when it came to a positive reaction. Most people seemed to have been fairly bored by it and considered it to be ‘very BBC’. I would assume that many of these people have seen the original film or read the book, neither of which I have done, and it would only seem right that they found the film less surprising and indeed shocking than I did. It has since struck me that some people may have watched Rowan Joffe’s adaptation in much the same way I endured There Will Be Blood.

Now there was a marmite film.  I know a great many people who thought it was a masterpiece but, while I could see that the technical aspects of the film were excellent, it just didn’t work as a whole for me. Spending nigh on 3 hours in the company of Daniel Plainview was not something I ever want to repeat and the film bored me to distraction. The soundtrack was intrusive and droning, the screenplay stark and stilted and I never felt truly involved. But some people were gripped. Some people applauded at the end while I wanted to get out as soon as possible. I think Brighton Rock may have the same effect on people and I am very interested to see how it is received by the critics.

To me, Joffe’s adaptation of Graham Greene’s novel (and he is very clear that it is an adaptation and not a remake of the 1947 film) is an intense, frightening look at internal mob rule. Transplanting the action to the youth riots of the 60s, Joffe presents a bleak look at the lives of Pinkie Brown, Rose Wilson, Ida and the rival gang members of Brighton. Sam Riley plays Pinkie, youngster of one of these gangs who decides to claim leadership when his previous chief is murdered. He is pretty much an unblinking psychopath and Riley imbues him with a tension that is hard to bear. It’s an open wound of a performance. You don’t really want to look but for reasons best explained by psychologists, your eyes keep getting dragged back.

Andrea Riseborough as Rose Wilson, Pinkie’s girlfriend, plays the part beautifully. Rose is an innocent; a very young girl absolutely taken with her first encounter with anything resembling love, and Riseborough is heartbreakingly good. Award-worthy, even. Helen Mirren is also outstanding as Ida, Rose’s employer, trying to save the girl from herself, and the supporting cast is strong. 

The film is very stark, with a violent orchestral score only emphasising the constant threat within the piece, and there is virtually no attempt to lighten the tone.  There are very few humorous moments and any that do crop up are usually immediately undercut with another rise in tension. The cinematography is clean and dark and the 60s seaside town is well realised with excellent detail. 

A film that will split opinion but that will stay with me for a long time - 9/10 

Submarine

"Do you often feel like this?"

Richard Ayoade's perhaps not quite coming of age directorial debut is rich with schoolday humour, teenage awkwardness and familial drama.  Oliver Tate (a tremendous Craig Roberts) is a self-important, daydreaming 15 year old with concerns about the state of his parent's marriage and the potential for romance with wild-card Jordana (Yasmin Paige).  His school environment is depressingly familiar and his days are filled with paranoia, self-delusion, home-cinema daydreams and mild arson.

Ayoade has crafted a beautiful, witty and moving film littered with excellent technical touches (the use of super 8 footage, cinematography, lighting and editing are all outstanding) which make the film as much a visual treat as it is a comic one.  His script is laugh-out-loud funny and touching in equal measures, taking the perspective of the fascinating teenage protagonist and painting a picture of each of his relationships – with his father, his mother, Jordana, and his image of himself.  The relationship with his father is particularly moving – the apple clearly hasn’t fallen too far from the tree in some aspects of Oliver’s character and Noah Taylor gives a very sympathetic performance as a man judged harshly by his wife simply for being who he has always been.

Yasmin Paige is a beautiful actress with an ability to say so much with a sideways glance that it negates the need for language.  Her Jordana is intense and a little bit frightening but with enough depth to make her vulnerable moments genuinely moving.  Paddy Considine is clearly having a whale of a time as Graham, the mystic ex-boyfriend of Oliver’s mother, played by a rather too fresh faced Sally Hawkins.  Sally is a little too young for the role of the disillusioned mother and this combined with the costuming and hair makes her look a little like a young woman playing dress-up.

Craig Roberts puts in a remarkable turn as the self-important Oliver.  His dead-pan voice-over is hilarious and, like his young co-star, Yasmin, he can say so much with simply a look.  He fills the screen with a lonely, melancholic air, while his character battles against himself to be the person he wants to be.  It is a truly wonderful performance full of contradictions, sympathy and pathos.

Where Submarine really succeeds is in how well the picture presents its story through Oliver’s eyes.  Jordana is fascinating and beautiful because that is how he sees her, his father is noble but weak, his mother a harsh critic trying too hard to seem fair and kind and Graham an absolute tosser because that is how Oliver has cast them.  At many points he returns to the idea of his life being a film – super 8 home-movie memories, epic crane shots and cinematic endings – and these people around him are his own supporting cast.  It is wonderful to watch him floundering as reality comes crashing into his world in such a way that even he can’t cast himself as the hero.

A wonderful journey into the sometimes scary mind of an awkward teenager – 8/10

Super Brother

"I don't know inside my head"

Anton has an older brother he wishes were different in this charming tale of wish fulfilment and sibling relationships.  Anton's older brother, Buller, has autism and cannot fulfil the requirements of a 'normal' older brother for Anton; someone to protect him from bullies and show him the way when it comes to girls.  Instead, Buller worries about ways to make Anton happy and draws him picture after picture of outer space.  And it's outer space which provides a potential answer to the brothers' dilemmas, with Anton discovering an extra-terrestrial toy that can turn his brother into a super hero.
Birger Larsen's coming-of-age comedy is a lovely look at a difficult relationship and he draws very good performances from all of the young cast (Andrea Reimer is particularly memorable as the young girl after Anton's hear).  Ake Sandgren's screenplay is true to the youth on screen and adds real feeling to a fairly fantastic plot.
The special effects are not the best you will see but the film has real heart and it is almost impossible to stop smiling at Anton and Buller's antics.  These scenes are truly fun and really bring home the point when dealing with the frustration and disappointment that Buller feels at his 'normal' life.

A charming coming-of-age story with a wonderful fantasy twist - 7/10

Surprise Film

The Surprise Film ended about 45 minutes ago and my heart is still in my throat and my insides have yet to untangle themselves.
The Surprise Film was tense and unflinching.  From the opening booming sounds over the brief credits to the final moments before the screen faded to black it never let up.
The Surprise Film was about people: innocent people, caring people, uncompromising people, soulless people and bloody scary people.
The Surprise Film had a violent, string-laden score with period touches that were perfect.
The Surprise Film did not let me recover; any moments of humour (and there weren't many) were immediately followed by a shocking orchestral chord or act of violence.
The Surprise Film left me shaken.
The Surprise Film was Brighton Rock.

Oki's Movie

"Keep making films."

Oki's Movie is only 20 minutes long.  This is because Oki's Movie is actually the last of four short films revolving around her affairs with two very different men during her time at university.  A Day for Incantation, King of Kissing and After the Snowstorm complete the brief snapshots of the lives of Oki and her lovers, Song and Jingu.
Not a great deal happens in any of these shorts and it is easy to lose touch with the timeline.  It doesn't help that at times (including one entire scene very early on in the film) the subtitles are completely obscured; white against white.
The performances are enjoyable - Lee Sunkyun is particularly strong as the pompous, bragging fool of a man developing from a needy, clingy boy - but the brief glimpses into the lives and thoughts of the protagonists do not allow you to become attached enough to care for them and the film felt largely forgettable.

A film where nothing happens, four times - 5/10

Everything Must Go

“You should get some curtains”

 

Dan Rush's film based on the very-short short story 'Why Don't You Dance?' by Raymond Carver is a languid, minimalist piece of work.  Will Ferrell plays Nick Halsey, a sales executive who, after falling off the wagon, loses his job and returns home to find all of his possessions on his front lawn, his wife gone and the locks changed.

 

Reading the LFF programme notes and seeing the accompanying picture I had expected a rather different film.  Sharper, less melancholy perhaps.  But the depiction of Nick's rejection and attempted recovery is very like the character himself.  Nick is no belligerent drunk; he is peaceful and patient with an internal sadness that says more than his words ever could.  His burgeoning friendships with a new neighbour and a lonely kid are beautifully realized; awkward and tender in equal measures.

Rebecca Hall is radiant as the sympathetic (to a point) neighbour.  Rush claims that she was the cast member they chased the hardest and you can see why.  She is the character with the most in common with Nick; both of them leading lives they didn’t exactly expect, and I was impressed with the dignity of her portrayal.  Laura Dern is also excellent in her brief appearance.  The only real weak spot for me was the performance of Michael Pena.  He seems entirely miscast as Nick’s AA sponsor and I found his storyline to be intrusive to the feeling of the piece as a whole.

The script is sparse, Rush preferring to engage the audience with silent reactions and long moments of quiet reflection.  He explained in the Q&A that he is not keen to give his audience much in the way of spoken explanation so that they can interpret the picture through their own experiences and I think it works in the film’s favour.  It draws you into Nick’s world and makes it strangely familiar, maybe even comfortable.  David Torn’s beautiful (I’ll admit it – I’m a huge fan) but not over-used score and Michael Barrett’s intimate and warm cinematography adds to this.

 

Essentially Rush has made my kind of film.  As with the likes of Lars and the Real Girl, Everything Must Go moves at a pace which allows the audience time to empathise with its characters and therefore get more of an emotional connection with the events on screen.  It is intimate, warm and minimal and I hope it gets a good audience – it deserves one.

 

8/10

The Social Network

"Did I adequately answer your condescending question?"

The Social Network is David Fincher's look at the events that unfolded around the creation of Facebook and the subsequent fallout.  It is a film about the  Social Media generation - that schizophrenic demographic that TV schedulers constantly fear will change the channel if they don't fully engage their imagination every nanosecond - and it is the perfect picture for this collective.  Gripping, entertaining and mildly schizophrenic itself, The Social Network is exactly what you'll have already seen it called by a number of more eloquent speakers for our time than I - zeitgeisty!
Flicking through its own timeline like a TV scheduler's nightmare, Fincher's latest classic hits its stride early on.  Its opening scene presents Mark Zuckerberg (a perfectly cast Jesse Eisenberg) as a socially inept genius, failing to get to grips with a real conversation with his girlfriend, firing off unknowing insults left, right and centre, and clearly with a way of reading the world on a completely different level to anyone else he knows.  Zuckerberg isn't intentionally cruel or evil, his brain is just working faster than yours and it isn't his fault if you can't keep up. 
This is a film that doesn't stop.  Three different periods of Facebook's creation and development keep interrupting, arguing with and illuminating one another.  It is brilliantly handled with dexterity and energy.  Aaron Sorkin's script lands hit after hit after speedy, quotable hit ("I'm 6'5", 220 pounds, and there are two of me.").  If someone were to write a film based on a not-necessarily-entirely-true account of my life I'd like to nominate this guy.  He keeps the protagonists snarky and cool but sympathetic enough to save a character like Zuckerberg from entirely alienating the audience.
Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield and Justin Timberlake are all excellent.  Garfield is the perfect fit for a character who has to show strength even while getting left further and further behind by something that he helped to get started.  He does a very good line in vulnerable and his performance is heartbreaking to watch at times.  Timberlake's Sean Parker is charismatic and energetic.  You can see why Zuckerberg would be taken with him.  I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I preferred his performance in Alpha Dog (maybe because it was a revelation to see just how good he was or perhaps because he was playing slightly more against type) but his performance in this film underlines the fact that he could happily consider giving up the day job.  Eisenberg is absolutely wonderful as the 'low-functioning' geek with the need to succeed.  There are shades of The Big Bang's Sheldon towards the start of the film but as the script takes Mark to darker places, Eisenberg's performance just gets stronger.  His pattern of speech, social awkwardness and internal focus and drive are absolutely consistent and flawless.
A final mention must be made of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross' driving score.  Underlining the action without drawing attention to itself - I just loved it.

Fincher has delivered a fast-paced, entertaining and gripping film with strong performances across the board - 9/10

Circo

"I'm telling you..."

In his introduction prior to the screening of his engaging documentary 'Circo', director Aaron Schock hoped that, on this rainy grey London day, his Mexican examination of familial relationships in an extraordinary environment would help to warm us up.
It is more than just a warming view of beautiful Mexican scenery and a fascinating cultural institution, delving into the life of a struggling rural circus and coming across a family straining at the seams.  Schock explained in his Q&A that his reason for travelling to rural Mexico to, originally, make a documentary about corn farmers was that he felt that American documentaries about Mexicans "always start at the border and work up".  On his journey he came across the Ponce family and their Circo Mexico and decided that these were the people to film: "A family trying to make a go of it in Mexico".

Filmed over a period of 21 months involving eight visits to the family Schock was granted real Access All Areas taking in, not only the main protagonists - ringmaster Tino, his wife Ivonne and their four children - but in all 13 "named characters", mainly from the Ponce clan.  Ivonne, not from a circus background, worries about the life that her children are leading and we are witness to a number of husband-wife discussions about this subject as well as Ivonne's financial concerns.  In an early tense exchange she brings up how much money her father-in-law makes from her husband and children - and on a number of following occasions we are treated to footage of Don Gilberto counting the day's takings.
Schock discussed his editorial choices in his Q&A and his realisation during filming that he "couldn't see this as just a child labour thing" which he'd clearly considered would most likely be one of the major themes of the documentary.  Instead he utilises sub-plots from the lives of Tino's niece and brother - Naydelin heading off to kindergarten illuminating the lack of traditional education for Tino's own children and Tacho's attempted relationship with a 'settled' woman which ends in the pair of them returning to the circus - to reflect on Tino's immediate family.
The film is rife with tenderness which Schock captures with a beautiful intimacy.  The participants are open and honest and the children provide many moments of wonderful humour (Cascaras' many girlfriends and a shot of all the young girls of the extended family practising contortions in the yard at their great grandmother's house raised more than a few titters).  The circus itself, although more than a little worn around the edges, is a bleakly beautiful setting and Schock's camera work does justice to both the big top and the rolling Mexican scenery.

An engaging, intimate and scenic examination of familial relationships in an extraordinary environment - 8/10

Chongqing Blues

"Don't get me wrong...."

The London Film Festival had a fairly downbeat start for me.  Following the 'Let Me In' cast and director into the Vue West End any celebrity pretensions I may have had were quickly lost with security telling us 'Chongqing Blues' folks not to stand on the red carpet.  I clearly couldn't be less famous if I tried.
 

This sense of the outsider was reflected back to me in Wang Xiaoshuai's sparsely scored film in which an estranged father returns to his past haunts in order to understand the events that lead to his son's death.  Lin Quanhai (Wang Xueqi) wanders the streets, blocked by almost everyone he encounters in his quest to answer questions and find some peace with the loss of his son.  But the fact is he lost his son long before his death and Lin knows this only too well.

 

Chongqing Blues is slow; at times painfully so, and I wasn't entirely convinced that this needed to be the case.  Even at just shy of 2 hours it feels like it could lose a good 10-15 minutes.  It moved from contemplative to ponderous to dragging in the 110 minutes and although the acting deserved the time and attention that it got some parts could have done with moving up a gear - a sequence where Lin follows his son's friend on a night out, for instance, could do with some tightening up.

For a film named after a city it is surprising and intriguing just how little of it we actually see.  We certainly cover a lot of ground; Lin trawling the city of his past as the camera stalks behind him but it is not a film to romanticise the area.  The camera's focus is almost solely Xueqi - his face, hands, and even his back for large periods.  It is a truly claustrophobic film with extended close-ups and shots that present a very limited field of vision around the protagonist.

Wang Xueqi's melancholic almost one-note performance is haunting to watch and he is backed up by some excellent work by Fan Bingbing as the off duty doctor caught up in events and Li Feier as his son's girlfriend.  I particularly appreciated the bravery of scenes in which Lin finally receives some of the answers he desperately wants and the camera is kept away from his face, focusing on the other character or Lin’s back.  Having spent so much of the film studying Xueqi's face Xiaoshuai finally makes us outsiders when it comes to Lin’s breakthroughs.

 

So, all in all, an interesting if downbeat opener for my London Film Festival 2010 experience.  I feel that it was aiming for haunting but dragged a little too much to get there.

6/10

Too long for Twitter

StrangerThanFlicktion is too long a name for Twitter so instead I have simply signed myself up as @Flicktion
http://twitter.com/flicktion
There will be the usual 140 character reviews up there.

How often is too often?

I went to the cinema three times this weekend.  Three different cinemas on three different days.  It has never really occurred to me that this is out of the ordinary but at work on Monday I was asked by someone why I had been to the cinema so often and came to the conclusion that any genuine answer I might be able to give would be deemed insufficient.

The simple fact is this:
I love films.

And even more I love the cinematic viewing experience.

I've always enjoyed watching films and loved going to the cinema with friends and family but since Uni and moving to London it has become a real passion of mine.  The London Film Festival is my most anticipated event of the year (followed closely by Oscar nominations) and I scour the programme and create ridiculously complicated spreadsheets based upon favourite choices, likelihood of getting tickets, friend availability and too many other things to list....

So yes, I'm a keen cinema goer.  An enthusiast even.  And it has suddenly occurred to me that for many, going to the cinema is something to do on the occasion that there's something on that you heard is good or to while away the time in the summer when the weather is bad.

So I have decided to record (for posterity I'm sure, rather than anything else) my cinematic experiences and my general love of all aspects of film.  I'll be heading to the LFF for the first of 9 films tomorrow and will be trying to put my thoughts into reviews longer than 140 characters for the first time.

Wish me luck!