Film Flare

10 (Film Diary 3: 23/01/12 - 29/01/12)

Hey everyone.

Here it be, another gathering of words that convey thoughts and opinions. Straight from my mind to your eyes (via the internet!).

 

Another seven days has slipped through the hour glass and since we are all one whole week closer to our inevitable demise, I thought I'd do a brief piece on the films I've seen in the last week to cheer us up. Enjoy!

 

 

That's another 2 seconds gone spent scrolling past this picture...

 

Enemy of the State (1998) 

Thanks to the ever useful BBC iPlayer, I saw this film was resting online and I had a free evening to myself so I thought, why not?

 

I've made worse decisions in my life.

 

 

A spy/action thriller directed by Tony Scott (brother to Ridley Scott, believe it or not!). Tony Scott has directed such firm favourites as the plane fetish, repressed homosexual recruitment drive Top Gun, tough revenge flick Man on Fire, the extremely underrated Unstoppable and early 90s too-cool-for-school love story True Romance. Genre films then, by and large. Known but not 'famous', you'll find them in a large number of DVD collections.

For Enemy of the State (EotS for short), Scott teamed up with producer Jerry Bruckheimer, a man who's one goal in life seems to be the explosive destruction of every single object that has ever existed on this planet.......ever. 

 

 

KA-BOOM! 

Con Air, Bad Boys, The Rock, Gone in 60 Seconds, Armageddon, Pearl Habour, Black Hawk Down, Top Gun, Beverly Hill Cop. That's a lot of films, he may as well top it all off with a film called Armageddon where the whole......

What? He's done that?

Oh.  

 

Regardless, EotS is a film that's quite large scale for Tony Scott and surprisingly restrained for Jerry Bruckheimer and it works quite well. Starring Will Smith circa Independance Day as labour lawyer Robert Dean, the plot is techno-conspiracy political surveillance. The advantage of a plot about those things is that they remain important in today's world so the plot doesn't date the film too much.

Another thing that still remains inpressive is the direction. Tony Scott really plays up the surveillance angle, most evident in several shots, especially the opening sequence. He really brings the idea that there are already X-number of cameras, helicopters, signals, etc that can be used to find or film you. 

 

Will Smith is likable, of course. Having written his character as a lawyer, I was initially concerned he'd become super-lawyer, punching people in the face and so on but against my expectation, his actions mainly seems to be him running away. In fact, the 'action' is mostly chases and they are GOOD. Good directing and editing on top of the innovative use of surveillance means that they are actually quite smart as well as entertaining. The only part where I had a suspend disbelief is where a wildlife reseacher suddenly becomes an olympic runner but I was too in awe to notice at the time.

 

Apart from Mr Smith, the cast features Gene Hackman, John Voight, Gabriel Byrne, Jake Busey, Jack Black, Seth Green, Tom Sizemore (I LOVE TOM SIZEMORE IN THIS FILM!) and Jason Lee. When the credits were rolling, I was thinking:

'Damn, that's a lot of names I recognise.'

The script is not really subtle, but it's a healthy mix of smart and funny. Will Smith gets to be a tiny bit of a smart-arse but not enough to get tiresome. The supporting cast is filled up with several big names and each one does extremely well. There are no obvious weaknesses in the cast. 

 

The only real weaknesses of the film are an over-adherence to the fact that it's first an action film. Whilst there is some spy/techno thriller in there, any grand statements the film wants to make tend to get buried under the noise. However, as an action film, it's a superior piece of work, with enough behind the noise to make you think a bit.

 

Seven Tom Sizemores out of Ten.

 

 

Trailer Here:

 

 

Back when they knew how to make trailers good.

 

 

The Town (2010)

First off, I need to start my piece by saying that this film has made me like Ben Affleck again.

Everything else is merely a footnote to this statement.

 

 

 

 

 

Ben Affleck directed and starred in this Boston based crime thriller, a mix of the intelligence and intensity of Heat coupled with a sense of belonging and family that rarely is found in films of this type.

Ben Affleck puts in an incredibly believable and nuanced performance as Doug Macray, a Charlestown native and actually quite nice guy, apart from the whole 'bank robbing thing'. Similar to Enemy of the State up there, there is a supporting cast that is incredibly strong:

• John Hamm: FBI. Balancing a fine line between 'bad cop' and driven cop. 
• Pete Postlethwaite: Terrifying. 
• Rebecca Hall: A human centre to the proceedings. Believable and more complex than the character could be. 
• Chris Cooper: Memorable and unpleasant. The character is a shit too. (ho-ho.)
• Jeremy Renner: Once again on A* form. Thuggish, fiery, somehow sympathetic.
• Blake Lively: almost unrecognisable. Fits the tone of the film well.

Literally everyone on the screen brings their A game and it shows. Similar to Heat, the characters in this film aren't cliche, they are expanded beyond that to become believe and 'real' people. 

 

Unlike similar films like Heat and Point Break that employ the 'close gang of friends rob banks', there is little in The Town that acts as a motive for the robberies. The money is there sure but the characters aren't living good lives like they do in Heat and they don't do it for the thrills like in Point Break. The opening quotes support the idea that they are robbing banks because it's their 'heritage', crime was passed down from generation to these characters and even though they have jobs and lives, this 'heritage' is making them continue the legacy of being in Charlestown, it's a fascinating idea and one that is at odds with almost every film in the same genre.

 

Even so, with a story that retreads a lot of familiar territory and characters that are SO close to being boringly familar, it is credit to the film that it nevers feels derivitive of other films. It holds its own with an incredible cast, superb level of acting and a direction that is frantic and bold. Ben Affleck may have found his expertise behind the lens rather than in front of it (leave that to his younger brother Casey), the direction, aided by cinematographer Robert Elswit and editor Dylan Tichenor is top notch. They make Charlestown look simultanously extremely appealing as well as depressing, with the script and characters too, the film comes across as an expose of Charlestown, not a love letter because the tone is so bleak but not a damnation because of the 'spirit' of the people there. 

If you like crime films and think you may have seen this all before, give it a watch anyway. Pleasant surprises are my business. 

 

Three out of Four robbed banks.

 

Trailer here:

 

 

Until next time folks!

 

9

Evening folks.

 

I wish to start with an apology.

12 days ago, in my cold reptilian haste I may have said that Drive was my favourite film of 2011.

I was wrong. I am sorry.

 

Whilst it is 2nd best film I saw last year, it was not no.1. That is reserved for a special film I saw this evening and will now brief you on. So here it be, my 4th entry into my 'Best of 2011' set, and this one is a doozy.

 

 

 

Yes indeed ladies and gentlemen, a piece of genuinely good filmwork from the intriguing Duncan Jones (born Zowie Bowie). Only the 2nd feature film after the painfully fantastic Moon, Source Code is a sci-fi thriller with overt Hitchcock overtones, an ending that'll make you think and a script intelligent and tight.

 

But first things first, let's get the bad stuff out of the way:

 

 

 

That trailer is PANTS. It single handedly put me off seeing the film until I saw the poster saying it was from the guy who directed Moon and even then I was not expecting anything great.

 

PAY NO HEED TO THE TRAILER!

 

This film is almost without fault. The idea is one seen before, the old Groundhog Day scenario but it is handled so tightly, so well that it never lets you go. 

The opening scene sets the scenario up and grabs you. From then it's just 90 minutes of intelligent, well scripted, well acted story. Each twist and reveal is given to you at the perfect time so you don't need to wait until the end to learn anything. 

 

Jake Gyllenhaal is on top form, Donnie Darko form, better than that. He is superb at everything he is tasked to do. Most of the film rests on his shoulders because he is present in nearly every scene. Apart from Jake, Michelle Monaghan, Vera Farmiga and Jeffrey Wright all excel in their roles, each extremely believable. Especially Farmiga, who really injects empathy into her role. 

 

The story idea of a man inhabiting the body of someone else for 8 minutes would easily be ludicrous. The only reason it works well is because the film is a tour de force of showing ordinary people in ordinary situations (besides the core situation).

It is in this respect that the film shows a Hitchcock-ian edge of an ordinary man put into an extraordinary situation. Jake's Colter Stevens is a real person, sweat, bags under his eyes and not understanding the situation he finds himself in. He learns as we learn, once he starts to grasp an understanding of what is going on, he starts to spend his time doing things that we would do if we were ever put in a similar situation.

 

So really, I would argue that this film is for people who like intelligent, well made, well structured films. If you're not into science fiction you may need to suspend your inner cynic in some respects but I genuinly feel that the overall positives of the film far, FAR outweigh the negatives. 

And so you end up with an emotional, smart film that keeps you entertained with twists AND makes you think. What more could you want?

 

 

Watch this film.

8 out of 8 minutes!

 

8 (Film Diary 2: 16/01/12 - 22/01/12)

Well howdily doodily there neighbourinos!

 

 

Welcome to Episode 2 of my wholesome, family-friendly fuckfest Film Flare's Film Diary. Aha!

Between last monday and sunday I, as is my custom, watched some films. This is a diary of those films. 

Savour!

 

Chinatown (1974)

Believe it or not, I had not seen this film before last week. Criminal I know!

 

 

This excellent neo-noir film was directed by Roman Polanski (his last film before fleeing the US for Europe) and stars Jack Nicholson and Faye Dunaway and features an incredible script by Robert Towne.

Jack Nicholson plays as J.J Gittes, a Private Investigator in LA in the 1930s gets caught up in a complex and twisted (and often dark) narrative that shares many genres staples of film noir but simultaneously turns several conventions around to keep the material fresh.

 

Polanski uses the setting to immerse the screen in colour, from dusty browns, vivid greens, blues, neon signs, headlights, street lights, all of the lights. A palette of colours most similar to L.A Confidential, a film set in 1954. The direction is exceptional, with a level of trickery and magic in several scenes that leave you wondering how certain actions were actually performed. Especially during a scene where Polanski appears himself as a small time gangster. This in particular (not saying which one) is a masterpiece of the gritty noir scene and leaves a lasting impression not only on the viewer but one of the characters too (ooooh!)

 

Nicholson, at the time a rising star cemented his leading man status. Intelligent, dangerous, charming, ugly, nasty, his J.J Gittes has as its core Raymond Chandler to thank. A morally ambigous man who gets through life with violence, seduction and persistence. Not a bad man, not a good man. Having seen Nicholson play the Joker in Tim Burton's Batman before this film, every smile, steel flash of his eyes remind me of his psychotic supervillain which gave Gittes a very creepy and insidous feeling which maybe was even stronger than Polanski intended.

Faye Dunaway similarly owes much of her character to Lauren Bacall and Mary Astor, however, it is through Dunaway's character that many of the updates of the Film Noir genre come to light. Her character at its outset seems the femme fatale character but as the film progresses, there is much more depth, strength and resiliance than female characters of the same genre were afforded thirty years earlier.

With an incredible script by Robert Towne, Chinatown is a depressing, gritty, thoroughly engaging look at the best of the noir and neo-noir genres wrapped into one package. 

Watch this film!

Trailer:

 

 

 

Columbiana (2011)

Oh what a change of pace from the deliberate Chinatown. This 2011 action film starring Zoe Saldana as a female revenge based assassin is at best a guilty pleasure involving Columbians, guns, the FBI and CIA unable to work together and a lot of slow-mo and repeated takes of explosions.

 

Long story cut short, you've seen it all before but is the film worthy of your time?

 

Directed by the excellently named Olivier Megaton and produced by Luc Besson (Nikita, Leon, other female assassins), this film is a technically well made, hollow shell. Zoe Saldana actually acts very well in it and does the best with the script she has but the rest of the characters are almost hilariously under written and stereotyped. 

The worst offenders: Columbian gangsters that seem to have been ripped from a Michael bay film.

 

So anyway, the film isn't at it's strongest when the script involves words but as soon as you replace the words with bullets, the film becomes immensly more watchable. There are several very well done action scenes, Zoe Saldana comes across as the bad-ass the film tells you she is in both hand to hand and gun fighting. There are a few quieter infiltration type scenes that are directed with a flair without the violent editing of the more frenetic fights.

And the tagline: "Vengeance is Beautiful"? Yeah, it knows one of the key draws of the film is the incredibly attractive Zoe Saldana, not quite shamelessly exploited, but she seems to enjoy wearing denim shorts and lycra a lot. But as I mentioned earlier, she acts heads and shoulders off the supporting cast and makes sub-par material par, a quality that shouldn't be overlooked.

 

In summary then, a cliched, derivative, well made, adrenaline pumping, stylish, simple film.

Not bad, but don't go out of your way to see it. Unless you like girls with guns and ......violent......action.......yeah. I may rewatch it!

 

Trailer:

 

 

 

See you next time.

Byeeeeee.....

7

Evening all,

 

After the resounding success of my last entry (6 - Drive), I thought I'd do an entire entry to Drive's director Nicolas Winding Refn, a director I am extremely fond of and who's style has been honed to a point after an explosive entry into the film world.

 

But first, introductions.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is Nicolas: 

 

 

Nicolas has recently found accolades and fame through his 2011 film Drive, receiving the Best Director award at the prestigious Cannes Film Festival as well as being nominated for a BAFTA in the same catagory (alongside directing powerhouses Tomas Alfredson and Scorcese.) However, life in this vein was not always on the cards for Refn, in fact he started out in a very different situation.

 

Born 1970 in Copenhagen, Winding Refn's first film started out as a 5 minute short for an application to the Danish Film School. Upon his rejection, he continued to expand the film, initially using friends and family to fund and act. He managed to acquire $1 million and began to make the movie in a more traditional fashion, during the making of the film the Danish Film School accepted him but he turned them down to finish the film. Presumptious yes! Arrogant, yes!

 

The film that resulted was Pusher.

At a time where English language films were still in love with Pulp Fiction, True Romance, Tarantino-esque slick, cool homages. Pusher was a handheld nightmare, a sordid story of an unpleasant man who finds himself in a VERY unpleasant situation and the increasing levels of desperation are all the more vivid because of the grimy, documentry feel of the film.

As the director, Winding Refn filmed the scenes in chronological order (apart from one or two scene re-shoo0ts after main filming had finished) because filming out of order 'confused' him. To capture a raw feel, he also filmed scenes without prior rehearsals, a practise that required actors and actresses were up to the role. Several weeks before filming, the actor who was playing the main character Frank was fired because Winding Refn felt he was too boring and lacked the presence needed to pull of such an intense role. With no replacement in line, he went to the (already established) Danish actor Kim Bodnia to take over as Frank. The main result of this was that the reaction of the cast acting against Kim was genuine because they were used to the previous actor's more gentle style of acting as opposed to Bodnia's brash, aggresive, instense acting. This shows. It turns out to be a highlight of the film.

Alongside Bodnia was fellow Dane, Mads Mikkelsen (known to most as Le Chiffre in Casino Royale) as Tonny. An actor who has remained close to Winding Refn and appeared in his later films.

The film was a big success in Denmark and found modest fame in the rest of the world, was the first main film in the 'gangster' genre of Danish cinema and launched Winding Refn's career.

 

 

Over the next fews years, Winding Refn released a few more films, Bleeder, starring Kim Bodnia and Mads Mikkelson again and Fear X, an English language film starring John Turturro.

Receiving moderate to positive reviews, Fear X was none-the-less a critical failure. Leading to the bankruptcy of his film company Jango Star. The debt of $1 million Refn found himself in led him to release a sequel to the now smash film Pusher (a film he had no intention to make a sequel to). Focusing this time on Tonny, Mads Mikkelson (now a Danish star) returned to the role that launched him to fame in the first place.

 

Pusher 2: With Blood on My Hands was released in 2004 and Refn continued with many directorial styles that he had first attempted in Pusher but had been not as prevalent in Bleeder and Fear X. Filmed again in chronological order and with handheld cameras (a technique Refn said allows complete freedom of camera movement), the heavy prevalence for shadow and harsh lighting as well as a series of scenes shot in heavy monochrome (Refn has mild colour blindness). This film, along the trilogy ender Pusher 3: I Am The Angel of Death, were very well received and the trilogy as a whole serves as a complete series of smaller stories within the Danish underworld.

 Trailer for the Trilogy here:

 

 

 

After the 2005 Pusher 3, Refn didn't direct another film for 3 years until the deeply disturbing and styled Bronson (a very loose biography of the prisoner of the same name). The film has several features that had been carried over from the Pusher films. Several scenes are filmed in very strong monochrome, the handheld camera work was replaced with more static cameras but the use of quick, strong violence in a world filled with unpleasant people was a theme that continued as well as the attention to darkness and light.

 

The direction of the film is of special note because the style of the film is satirical, vaudevillian and generally quite bizarre. The style matches the person it tells the story of. Bronson himself and his story is disturbing and bizarre and the style of the film matches this.

It's not your average film style. 

 

 

 It's also pretty fucking depressing and dirty. Not recommended for all.

 

Only a year after Bronson was released, Refn teamed up once again with Mads to make historical fighty, art house historical Valhalla Rising. Playing a mute Norse warrior called One Eye, Mads carves up people starting out in the highlands but then travelling by boat, with the aim of joining the Crusades in Jerusalem.

The film depart from Refn's usual style in almost all respects. The direction is slow, languishing but focusing on scenes of beauty and importance. There are still the quick outbursts of violence and the world populated by unpleasant, violent people  but the camera work specifically is much more static, similar to Bronson as opposed to his earlier films.

 

And last year, as noted last episode, Refn released Drive. What many consider his most accomplished work yet. The camera remains more static, a style more noted in his later films. The use of darkness and shadow play a large role in the film and there are still monochrome scenes but they have been toned down since Pusher 2 for example. 

The film is populated (once more) by dangerous and grizzled men and the violence remains sudden and shocking.

However, there is a more subtle style at work in Drive than in any of his other film. Whilst long takes of actors faces are present in most of his films, as in Drive, the direction in this film seems to so much more match the change in tones the film takes. In his Pusher films, the camera style and shot style is continous, regardless of what is happening on the screen (possibly due to Pusher's small budget), in Drive, the long takes are mixed in more comfortably with quicker editing in the 'faster' scenes, helping the audience to get excited in action and more laid back for the inaction.

 

Now sitting comfortably at the start of 2012 as one of Europe's most talented directors, Winding Refn looks to be teaming up with his main man Ryan Gosling again for a proposed 2014 remake of the classic Logan's Run. A remake that I'm sure will divide you, dear readers.

 

 

 

Until next time.

 

 

6

 

Evening people.

Welcome to episode 3 of my 'Best of 2011' entries. This film may well have been my favourite of last year so without further ado, I can reveal it to be:

 

 

 

Drive. Nicolas Winding Refn's much celebrated genre film.

Now the reveal has come, read on lovely folks!

 

(No spoilers!)

 

Even though it was several months ago, I still remember watching Drive in the cinema with an unnatural clarity. Watching this film was one of the most entertaining times I've ever had in a cinema screening. I'm struggling to think of a film where I could feel my heart beating so fast. This is due to several factors, the first is the intensity of the film, which is a byproduct of it's unpredictability.

Operating at the heart of Drive was an interesting divide, at times the film is both wonderfully tender and brutally violent. The cars and phones are contemporary but the music is retro. The dialogue is sparse and quiet but the guns, sirens, cars, music is loud. This gave the film an aura of genuine surprise. The intensity comes from a very quick buildup to an explosive event. A scene in a lift springs to mind, a very quiet scene to begin, a line or two of quiet dialogue and music and then *BAM*. It is during the quiet bit leading up to the *BAM* where I could feel my heart race, I could physically see the audience tighten up, hands gripping armrests, heads slowly moving away from the screen. It was something in a film screening I had rarely seen.

 

The cast also outdo themselves. Ryan Gosling (slight man-crush), who I've not been a huge fan of in past films, is genuinely good. He has slight facial movements that communicate a remarkable amount, doubly so when considering he doesn't speak much in the film. However, unlike a character like Clint's Man with No Name, where his silence hardened him, in the case of Drive, the lack of dialogue softens him. Makes him seem more vulnerable, not socially awkward but you feel he doesn't know what he should say so he chooses to remain quiet. As the events of the film unfold however, he talks more and becomes more assertive to more people and you find out he is a very quick thinking, intelligent and capable person, but not superhuman. He seems to have come from the pages of some super cool graphic novel, a flawed hero in a driving jacket with an embroidered scorpion on his back. 

 

 

 

The female lead is played by Carey Mulligan. Mulligan looks the part, she is pretty enough but plain enough that she doesn't stand out as being too beautiful for the film. With the exception of Mulligan and Gosling, this is a film filled with rugged looking men and women, wrinkles and scars betraying a hard life. The chemistry between Gosling and Mulligan shows just why Mulligan was perfect in her role as Irene. The relationship is never really a relationship, it's awkward conversation, a friendship with an attractive woman in need, a good man doing good deeds, the two rarely touch. It's a relationship that fits the characters we've been shown, awkward, depressing, never obvious. Mulligan plays the role to match the tone of the film and that should be commended and is also why Mulligan works as Irene.

 

The supporting cast are as good as Gosling. Almost every positive review of Drive I've read has highly praised Ron Perlman, Bryan Cranston and especially Albert Brooks (taking a usual departure from his comedic voice work). These praises are entirely justified, I hate to simply fall in line with other reviewers if I can avoid it but possibly even more than the two main characters, these three are at the top of their games, each filling their role expertly. Albert Brooks was not a winner for the Best Supporting Actor catagory at the Golden Globes, and has not even been nominated at the 2012 BAFTAs even though Drive has been nominated in four catagories: Best Film, Best Supporting Actress for Mulligan, Director for Nicolas Winding Refn and Editing for Mat Newman. 

 

Director Nicolas Winding Refn won 'Best Director' at the 2011 Cannes Film Festival and he's been nominated (as mentioned above) for best Director at the 2012 BAFTAs for this film and it's not hard to see why. Not wishing to belittle the other directors in the category but Drive carries with it an incredible display of composition, colour, pace and confidence. Long, unedited shots on characters faces betray the mark of a director who has complete confidence in his cast, the qualities of which I've touched on already.

(The next edition of Film Flare will detail Nicolas Winding Refn's career and the touches that run throughout his work.)

 

This film is a strange creature when all is said. The scope of the film is small, the characters have no large reaching actions beyond their own lives. There is nothing immense at stake. The bad guys are bad because badder guys are pushing on them so in turn they push on smaller people. It has through it an undertone of incredible depression and yet, through the style, the characters and the creative choices, the film emerges as a loud, brash genre piece with a suprisingly subtle edge.

 

Watch this film now! (If you've seen it already, it's out on DVD 30th Jan)

Trailer:

 

 

Also, don't make the mistake that this lady made: (From Drive wiki page)

'A Michigan woman named Sarah Deming has sued both FilmDistrict and Emagine Theaters... in October 2011 due to suffering "damages", feeling that the previews were misleading. Filing under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, she stated its distributor marketed Drive as similar to theThe Fast and The Furious film series, and, in a bait and switch act, gave her a motion picture with little racing.'

......yeah......

5 (Film Diary 1: 09/01/12 - 15/01/12)

What ho fine folk?

 

 It's time to violently throw open the doors, light a makeshift torch from rags soaked in oil and to explore the dark, chaotic world that is my film watching life.

Depending on how much energy I have, it is my intention write a brief diary of films I have watched the proceeding week and to briefly review them. Hopefully, this will be intercut with witty vignettes and interesting asides. Hopefully. I am full of hope. 

With these cards on the table and ignoring a full house of housemates, I plough on. (insert 'Your Mum joke' here)

Sorry. I'll try to be mature too. Where appropriate. 

(I'll also not be noting specific times and dates of watching these films, partially because it requires a frankly inhuman level of organisational skills and secondly, I don't want to tell you if I watched three crap films in one night.)

 

Onwards!

 

Nanny (1965)

Kids are shit aren't they? What dicks! You see them in the street, if they're not being lazy, sat in some chair or another gurgling harsh commands like Jabba the Hutt, they're throwing bricks through front windows of Footlocker because they're too stupid to realise there's more to life than the illegal acquisition of trainers. Trainer they'd wear whilst they shuffle, zombie like through the world around them like the rest of us. 

 

 

That's why I have no kids of my own.

 

This does tie into a brief review of this 1965 Hammer Horror/Seven Arts production by the way, it wasn't entirely baseless. The kid in this film is a shit, an A* Grade shit. As you can see, the poster above asks 'Who would you trust....the nanny or the boy?'. Even if the film showed the Nanny carving up small animals whilst chanting to Baal, Lord of Destruction (which it doesn't), I'd still probably trust the Nanny over the child, just because he's a loud, stroppy, arrogant little arse.

 

The actress who plays Nanny is the always reliable Bette Davis, an actress who has never shied away from unconventional roles in pursuit of an acting challenge. Her acting career covered many decades and roles as varied as it's possible to imagine. In this film, she is extremely subtle. An eyebrow here, a flash of emotion in a gaze here and a slight pause before a line highlight an extremely capable actress and the film (and it's successes) rest almost entirely on her shoulders. The supporting cast of Wendy Craig and William Nix are fine enough but are written into the sidelines. In almost every scene, Bette's Nanny is present and she is a joy to watch.

 

Without giving away spoilers, the film ends in a mildly disappointing fashion and overall, the film has the feel of a Hitchcock homage not up to Hitchcock's standards (very few films achieve this) but it is an interesting watch and with a running time just over 90 minutes, a well paced film that never outstays it's welcome.

Seven out of Ten tantrums.

 

 

Dracula, Prince of Darkness (1966)

 

 

 

Another Hammer Horror film. This in a more traditional and stereotypical 'Hammer Horror' vein. Hammer staple Christopher Lee stars as Dracula (who else?) being 'killed' at the start of the film with a rather clever use of special effects. But being Dracula, if me saying that he doesn't stay dead is actually a spoiler for you, tough.

Cue grizzled Abbott interrupting a funeral of a young girl ten years later. Taking action when the girl is about to be (gasp!) staked through the heart. We then are introduced to four English tourists (charmingly named the Kents), who travel to an ominous castle and an eerie man called Klove.

 

Peter Cushing aside, this film has every hallmark of a classic Hammer Horror film. The production values are surprisingly high, with elaborate costumes and the castle interiors are fantastic. The acting has a camp value to it which makes it extremely watchable. The Kents have English accents that I couldn't achieve through years of hard practice. Played by Barbara Shelley, Francis Matthews, Suzan Farmer and Charles Tingwell are stiff, polite and unaware. As their fate approaches, you somehow feel that they are undeserving, you end up liking them. It's a nice effect.

 

All in all, a charmingly old fashioned and very enjoyable vampire film. Christopher Lee is wonderful (even though he has no lines). Not for everyone though. 

Three out of Four english tourists.

 

 

Scary Movie 3 (2003)

 

....yeeaaaaahhhhh. Sorry about this. It was late, I was tired and I was desperate.

 

Scary Movie 1, hilarious. Scary Movie 2, pretty good. Funny in a tasteless way.

Scary Movie 3, damn. It's a parody of The Ring mostly, with Signs, The Matrix and 8 Mile. Remember those films? Good. The only funny parts come mostly from the 8 Mile parodies, with Simon Rex actually doing quite a good Eminem impression. A large cast of names (include the late, great Chairman of the Board: Leslie Nielson), and you can't help but be impressed at the roster of cameos, including Simon Cowell (who gets shot, hooray! He's a celebrity that people don't like. That's the joke!) and Fat Joe, who rap battles Simon Rex.

 

At best, 1 out of 3

 

 

AWOL (in the UK)/Lionheart (Rest of the World) (1990)

Oh Jean Claude! An oft-forgotten action film star with a surprisingly small number of martial arts moves. Watch Steven Seagal and you'll see him do some crazy stuff, Jean Claude Van Damme (JCVD for future) always seems like a character you play in Street Fighter where you just spam the one move. His kicks are potent, but overused. 

Apart from Kickboxer, Lionheart is one of JCVD's best known films. A healthy dose of fighting, implausible story to write JCVD into fights and a strain of anti-Yuppie sentiment. A French Foreign Legionnaire, JCVD flees to New York to visit his dying brother who was burned alive in a drug deal gone wrong. To find his way to LA (where his brother is), he needs money and through a streetwise manager enters the world of bareknuckle boxing (yeah.). He gets fame and money and gets to LA but then has MORE fights for a hot, blonde rich woman who grooms him as her personal fighter.

The fight quality varies from being extremely good (JCVDs fight with a scottish man stands out!) to being almost laughable (versus some huge man mountain who takes all his punches and kicks).

 

This film had a bizarre effect on me though. The last fight scene in the film was weak, so weak it actually made me laugh out loud. But afterwards, there was an emotional scene between JCVD and his manager that was ACTUALLY emotional. It was at this point I realised that 90% of the film was crap. The plot, the acting, all weak, but 10% worked. It was the manager (Harrison Page) that had a core of actual humanity about him, and it was this that I cared about. This one single character. 

One of of Four punches.

 

 

Phew! Just over a thousand words and a few hours later. I am exhausted.

Will try to keep this up though, but remember my mantra:

 

I watch some terrible films, so don't judge me.

 

Bon nuit! 

4

Hello to you all.

 

This is Episode 4 and also part 2 of the Best of 2011 articles.

(fanfare.)

 

Yes, Rise of the Planet of the Apes or to give it's full title 'Best Blockbuster of 2011'.

(You won't find that on IMDB, I did just make that up. You can tell because it reads a tiny bit easier than Rise of the Planet of the Apes which shall be referred to now as ROTPOTA in future to save me a fortune on keyboards.)

ROTPOTA is a film that no-one expected to be any good. The last film in the series was the frankly bad Tim Burton Planet of the Apes (2001), which was a direct remake of the classic (and slightly naff) 1968 Planet of the Apes film, starring barrel chested, gun loving apeloid Charlton Heston overacting his way through the film as if his unevolved arse depended on it.

 

After the original 1968 came a wave of Ape mania. People went apeshit over the films although it was only the original that came out in the swinging sixties. Thoughout the 70s came a further four films, Beneath /Escape from /Conquest of/Battle for The Planet of the Apes and then no more films. 

In 2001, Tim Burton released a 'reimagining' of the original film starring 'Marky' Mark Wahlberg and Burton's own prime mate Helena Bonham Carter (okay, I'll stop with moneky puns). The film was not very well received although praise was given to Rick Baker for his monkey effects.

Planet of the Apes (2001)

Planet of the Apes (1968)

 

Before the release of the Tim Burton Planet of the Apes, distributing company Fox said that if the film was a success, it would commission a sequel, therefore starting the franchise from fresh. However, whilst the film was a financial success (£360 million Box Office vs £100 million budget) Fox decided against the idea of a sequel and the franchise went dead once more.

Rupert Wyatt (previous work includes writing and directing The Escapist) began filming ROTPOTA in 2010, wishing the film to be an original story and a part of the mythology instead of a continuation of the previous films or another re-imagining. The idea of a prequel fills most intelligent film lovers with dread, almost as much as a remake. However, this film doesn't end where the original POTA begins, it's aim was just to show how the situation in POTA happened. 

 

ROTPOTA itself is a prime example of when most elements of film go right. The effects (by Peter Jackson's WETA Digital) are spectacular and unlike the previous films, the ape effects were digital rather than physical. 

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)

Beneath the CGI is stalwart physical magician Andy Serkis who is something of a mystery in this film. He plays the main ape Caesar and I cannot for the life of me tell if all of the motions are his own, the monkey IS a monkey. Moves like one, interacts physically like one, expresses itself like one (for the most part) but I've been told it's Andy Serkis in a funny suit. He is amazing. You completely forget he's there. Which is a shame because he is amazing, you completely forget he's there, which is a shame......etc etc. (link it to a Reuter's article, if you're wondering.)

 

Beyond the incredible apes, not much room is left for the human cast though. Will Rodman (played by James Franco) is a likable role, at times soft and sweet, sometimes his eyebrows furrow and his forehead wrinkles if he's seen something he dislikes.

The relationship between James Franco and Caesar is brilliant. Having it take place over several years cements the changes between them and makes the inevitable 'Rise' of the title surprisingly emotional. John Lithgow is also remarkably good as the human plot catalyst and Rodman's dad. The love interest Caroline (Frieda Pinto) is almost excess to requirements and her screen time reflects this. The relationships that matter are Rodman, Caesar and Rodman's father.

Brian Cox, Tom Felton (almost shaking off that, 'Hey, it's Draco Malfoy!' thing) and Heartless Businessman fill out the supporting cast. Not complex, but the suit their purpose and none of them let the film down at all. And once the Ape uprising does happen, it is an incredible series of scenes entirely worthy of the surprisingly long buildup.

A few cheeky (and powerful) nods to the original film and the ending of the film point towards a sequal and maybe, finally, the franchise will start off again, like a monkey pun I can't be bothered to write.

 

Trailer:

 

 

 

Until next time.

 

 

 

 

3

Evening one and all.

 

A film and hearty welcome to ep.3 of Film Flare. This issue will be the first in a series summing up what I (as an impartial viewer) considered to be some of the better films of 2011, a year that despite the sightly underwhelming blockbusters (Transformers, Green Lantern, etc), surprised many with a strong showing of smaller budgeted, smaller scale films. 

 

The first of the 'Best of 2011' entries is.....(fanfare please!)

Yes, Takashi Miike's epic old-fashioned ninja/revenge flick 13 Assassins. 

 

Takashi Miike has over the last twenty or so years brutally carved a niche market within cinema. Working at a ruthless work rate (around seventy films/TV productions in twnety years), Mr Miike is most famous in the West for incredibly unnerving romance/horror (you read that right!) Audition as well as insane, twisted sadism/maochism face-off Ichi the Killer (trailer rated BV: for Bloody Violent).

The director's other lesser known film include such titles as Dead or Alive and Visitor Q, which means that if we add all of these films together, we end up with a director who has incredible style, visual flair, a sense of humour blacker than a coalminer's arse and a propensity for extreme violence.

 

We find all of these things in 13 Assassins, in some ways the most restrained he has been for some time. The film is essentially split into three acts, a theme common for samurai films in general:

• Act 1 - the villian or circumstance that requires the samurai to take action
• Act 2 - the gathering of other warriors and the planning of the action
• Act 3 - the action

Make no mistake, the villian of the film comes across as a twenty four carat monstor, the film really pushing the limits of it's 15 rating. The actor, Goro Inagaki really playing the dead eyed, 'smile dancing in the corner of the mouth' Matsudaira Naritsugu to a chilling standard. 

The gathering of the Assassins is where the majority of the dry humour comes in, especially with the character of Kiga Koyata (a character with traits similar to many Akira Kurosawa samurai characters).

The 3rd Act is a consumate display of choreography, cinematography and visual continuation as our plucky band of Assassins wade their way through Naritsugu's two hundred (200!) strong army with nothing but strategy, skill and cunning. This sequence is incredible, filled with every emotion a dictionary could muster, every previous shot and sequence Miike directed seems to been practise for this 30 minute fight. Beautiful!

 

But it is this next point that elevates 13 Assassins from simply a good samurai film to a fantastic film. It is so similar to the classic Samurai films in feel, tone, structure and these aspect are placed within a modern film making method. The film IS a proper, good old-fashioned Samurai film but for modern audiences, and well worth a watch.

 

Rating: 11 out of 13. 

Trailer here:

 

 

P.S

Before some of you smart-arses come wading in, I know technically the film was released in Japan in 2010, but the UK release date was May 2011. Which is why it's under my 'Best of 2011'. 

2

Good evening to you all again.

Episode 2 of Film Flare in as many days, Oorah!

 

Brief Review:

Just finished watching a 2010 Korean thriller film called The Yellow Sea.

 

The vague story (again, without spoilers) is that a taxi driver with an unhealthy addiction of gambling away his money finds himself in the employ of an unsavoury fellow who wants our penniless taxi driver to travel to South Korea and kill a man.

 

Again, without revealing too much, all I'll really say is that there is a LOT of violence involving these:

And these:

And as a consequence, there is a huge amount of:

The trouble with the film is that nearer the beginning, the violence and repercussions of the violent actions are much more harrowing and gruesome but as the film runs its 140 minute length, you actually start to become less affected by the violence (apart from in a few cases).

Regardless, there are one or two thrilling chases which certainly keep you at the edge of your seat and the film is very well acted and suitably dirty and grimy. Even at over two hours long, the film doesn't drag or lose pacing at any point although towards the end, you wish there would be a quiet scene just so you can digest the plot advancements before the maniacal pacing starts again. 

 

Just like watching Oldboy, it's a cinematic feast but it's not a fun film. It won't brighten your day, unless you've had the shittest day in the history of mankind.

If you can stomach watching two men gruesomely fight to the death on the pavement of a South Korean bus station using nothing but their god given feet and fists....and a hatchet, then this film is worth a watch.

 

Score:

Seven bloody knife wounds out of ten.

 

 

Just before I sign off, I just wanted to share the trailer for the new, upcoming sequel to Clash of the Titans.

Oh yes!

The film no-one liked has spawned a sequel that no-one asked for.  It's called Wrath of the Titans...Oorah!

Enjoy!

 

 

Sleep well.

 

 

1

Hello.

 

Welcome to the first entry of my new blog Film Flare, a New Years Resolution twelve hours in the making. 

It is now 2012 and there are many exciting and interesting films coming out this year and I shall be mentioning many of them in further installments of the blog.

Not only that but 2011 was full of fine films of all genres and again, some of those will be mulled over in the future as well alongside reviews of random films that I just watch as time goes by.

 

*A small note*

Obviously whilst talking about the films I will try to reveal as little about the plot as possible but in the event I do slip up, I'll give advanced warning of any spoilers there might be so you, dearest reader can ignore it and read the spoilers anyway.

 

So, a film I watched a few days back is called Hanna.

This 2011 action/thriller film was directed by Joe Wright, a step away from his usual genre of films such as Atonement and Pride and Prejudice. 

Teaming up with Atonement actress Saoirse Ronan, and the ever awesome Eric Bana, the film is about a girl (Hanna) who is raised by Eric Bana as an assassin. And it's pretty damn good.

Rounding off the cast are the icy Cate Blanchett, Jason Flemyng and (hilariously enough), Tom Hollander, a man I mostly recognise as being 'the fucker' from The Thick of It as a peroxide blond, camp german called Isaacs.

The direction is a little bit frantic at times, but at others, long tracking shots are used to impressive effect. The acting is overall good, the main cast doing very well with odd idea, Blanchett's accent seems to vary slightly from time to time but it never really distracts. The soundtrack was done by The Chemical Brothers and to start it seems a little techno to really fit but as the film's pace increases, the music seems to fit more and more.

The film never outstays it's welcome and isn't as similar to Leon as you'd expect, a worthwhile way to spend 111 minutes and it gets a thumbs up.

Hanna is out on DVD now.

 

Watch the trailer below:

 

 

If you've seen it and disagree (and you might disagree, even though you'd be wrong) then comment below.

 

 

The day after watching Hanna, I went to the cinema and laid my merry peepers on a little known film called Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, starring the world's most intense Hoodie.

Watching this film highlight several points to me:

• Tom Cruise (personal life aside) is a charismatic star, his Ethan Hunt somehow comes across well, especially in this film.
• Brad Bird is one of the best American action directors around at the moment. Most scenes of the film are impeccably well directed, tense, gritty, and one scene in particular gave me a genuine sense of vertigo. Unlike Michael Bay, Bird's action scenes have a fluidity that makes them a beauty to watch. 
• This is Brad Bird's first live action film as a Director, previous films he's directed include the Pixar films The Incredible and Ratatouille as well as Disney film The Fox and the Hound.
• Jeremy Renner is amazing. Fact!
• Simon Pegg is a scene stealer and everyone in the cinema loved him.

The long story short, this film is the best in the series, re-invigorating the franchise but you can read that in any paper or any website worth its salt. I'll just say that it's only noticeable flaw is that is goes on about 20 minutes too long. 

A damn fine action film, if you like action and film, then you should see it at some point.

 Thumbs Up

 Trailer here:

 

 

Alrighty then.

I'll be back soon with more news and reviews and something that rhymes with those two things.

 

(I may also drop the thumbs up bit if I can think of anything better)