Film Flare

17

Good day folks.

 

The previous sixteen entries of this film blog entity has dealt almost entirely with the past. It is time to turn my mighty keyboard onto the upcoming year with:

 

2012 or Why This Year Might Be Really Really Good For Films. (pt1)

 

Really this is a small (by no means exhaustive) list of films that are coming up in the year 2012 and why I am excited by them and why you should be too.

 

1) Prometheus  (Release Date: 30/05/12 - 08/06/2012 )

 

 

Oh damn!

Let's start with the Daddy.

 

Why I am Excited:

Ridley Scott's best films are science fiction and some of science fiction's best films have been directed by Ridley Scott. Both Alien and Blade Runner are landmarks of cinema and amongst my favourite films of ALL TIME (caps for emphasis!). Having taken some time away from the sci-fi genre, Ridley Scott's return is highly anticipated, especially by me.

Hushed whispers of ties to the Alien film and an appearence of the mysterious 'Space Jockeys' have fans chomping at the bit like rabid horses. Add to this a cast so good it makes my eyes bleach themselves to make sure I wasn't seeing things and you have what could well be one of the best films of the year, certainly the one I am anticipating the most (yes, even more than a certain Batman film I'll mention in a bit).

 

Why You Should Be Excited Too:

 The incredibly talented cast of actors include Michael Fassbender (X-Men: 1st Class), Noomi Rapace (The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo), Guy Pearce, Idris Elba, Charlize Theron and IT'S DIRECTED BY GODDAM RIDLEY SCOTT.

Alien was a bloody scary film and certainly the Prometheus trailer looks to follow in that film's footsteps. Add incredible looking CGI, landscapes and a heap of action, this film should be punching craters of awesomeness into your brain right about......

 

...now!

 

 

2) The Dark Knight Rises (Release Date: 20/07/12)

 

Yeah, don't pretend that you weren't expecting this.

 

Why I Am Excited:

Both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight were both superior exercises in why superhero films work. The same cast and team behind two fine films, there is little reason to assume a 'fuckup' (as they're so charmingly known). An expansion on an already impressive cast and the very fact that director Chris(t) Nolan is heavily pushing the fact that this is the last in the trilogy means it could be filled with intense emotion turmoil as possibly the end of Batman!

An almost unheard of level of hype has meant that every aspect of the released material has been scrutinised, from the jaw-dropping 6 minute teaser to Bane's hyper-garbled voice issues. I imagine this film may demolish box office takings for its opening weekend.

 

Why You Should Be Excited:

 Because you have eyes and ears.

Chris Nolan can also pull the best performances out of his cast and this film has a MAD cast:

• Christian Bale
• Tom Hardy
• Anne Hathaway
• Michael Caine
• Gary Oldman
• Morgan Freeman
• Marion Cotillard
• Joseph Gordon-Levitt

That's a lot of recognisable names. Hopefully the film won't be overcrowded.

 

  

 

 

3) The Avengers  (Release Date: 27/04/12)

 

 

More Superhero goodness! 

 

Why I'm Excited:

It started with Iron Man in 2008. Since then a variety of films have cememted the individual characters of almost all of the heroes to appear in the Avengers. We are talking the sexy-as-shit Iron Man, Thor, Captain America etc. Oh, and the badguy looks to be Loki, which rocks my world.

Written and Directed by Joss Whedon  who is possibly one of the biggest comic book geeks in film today and you know that if anyone can make it go right and give the Avengers the treatment they deserve, it's this guy.

 

Why You Should Be Excited:

For guys - Scarlett Johansson

For ladies - Chris Hemsworth and Chris Evans.

Seriously, this film has beautiful people in it.

An estimated budget of $220 million also means it shouldn't disappoint with the superhero action.

 

 

 

 

 

4) The Amazing Spiderman (Release Date: 04/07/12)

 

 

 

Why not go three for three.

 

Why I'm Excited:

Hmm, I'm not so sure of this one. Whilst I do adore Spiderman, the Sam Raimi versions were pitch perfect, the right balance of primary coloured superhero goodness and required emotional turmoil. Toby Maguire also made a damn good Peter Parker.

I do quite like Andrew Garfield though and I have faith the film will be good, just maybe a little.....unnecassary since the older Spiderman films are still vaguely recent. The director has also stated that the film will show Spiderman in a slightly darker light and I'm not sure that's needed. I'll wait and see though. It's also directed by Marc Webb, who previously directed......500 Days of Summer, hmm.

 

Why You Should Be Excited:

A good cast and a reliable back story. Possibly. Wait for the reviews to start rolling in, it's too close to call this one.

 

 

 

 

5) The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (Release Date: 14/12/12)

 

 

 

 

Why I Am Excited:

Director (Peter Jackson) and most of the cast from Lord of the Rings? Check! 

The LoTR films were among the best times I've had in the cinema and this films looks to be a very recognisable extension of that so all the pieces are in place to make this film very good indeed.

 

Why You Should be Excited:

Adding to an already astounding cast of Ian Holm, Christopher Lee, Ian McKellan, Elijah Wood, Orlando Bloom, Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett, Andy Serkis and more you get n00bies Martin Freeman, Benedict Cumberbatch, Steven Fry, Sylvester McCoy and more.

Having Guillermo Del Toro attached to the project was exciting at one stage but handing the reins back to Peter Jackson seems the most sensible option. Once again Weta are dealing with the digital side and you should be antipating this beast.

 

 

I mean how can you not be excited about the potential in that trailer!

 

 

That is all for Part 1.

Part 2 shall arrive in a few days bringing news of Bourne, Bond, Tarantino, Pixar AND a certain Megacity 1 Lawman.

 

 

 

See you then!

16 (Film Diary 5: 13/02/12 - 19/02/12)

What ho blood relations!

 

What a busy old week it's been. Luckily, in between the top secret missions and police work, I have managed to fit in watching another few films. As is rapidly becoming tradition, this is about those films.

So we begin ep.5 of FFFD (Film Flare's Film Diary)

 

The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (1965)

 

 

This adaption of John le Carre's novel stars Richard Burton at his very best. Playing burnt out agent Alec Leamas with a nasty laugh, a mean stare and a tone to his voice that cuts through you. He is incredible. An academy award nominee for Best Actor is completely deserved. He is so expressive with every emotion, disgust, shame, anger, each one is subtle enough to be believable for a spy.

Oskar Werner won a Golden Globe for his portrayal of Jewish East German Intelligence Officer Fiedler, a charming, intelligent man who's character is fully fleshed out and it is this character which plays a vital part of the film's plot. Seemingly more intellectual and human than both his fellow East German officers and the British spies, it is a performance that matches Burton's own. 

 

The story, being a Le Carre spy novel is deceit layered on further deceit, twist and turn and yet the plot remains simple. The general plot involves Burton's Leamas pretending to be a defector to feed mis-information to the East Germans. However, as time goes on and more information gets revealed, you realise that each and every character is manipulating and being manipulated by other people and motives are turned on their heads, victory to defeat and as the film runs towards its conclusion, it all comes together in an extremely satisfying way.

But it's grim. 

Jesus Christ it's grim.

The black and white cinematography by Oswald Morris is fantastic, London is grotty and gritty, other countries bleak and nasty. Barbed wire, broken walls and nasty looking men fill the screen and it gives you an idea of the backdrop of horror the story inhabits. The film remains plausible partly because of the lack of 'spy' tropes. There are no gadgets, no action, no direction or reason really. There are just men told what to do and making the best of it with their own wits and intelligence. 

The script follows a similar vein, characters are frequently wrong, or liars. A choice quote sums this up well:

"What do you think spies are? They are a bunch of seedy, squallid bastards like me, little drunkards, queers, henpecked husbands." He snarls to his companion. 

James Bond this isn't.

 

But it is a very compelling, incredibly acted spy thriller and I'd watch it again in a heartbeat.

 

Trailer (possibly the best trailer ever):

 

 

Starsky and Hutch (2004)

 

 

 Well paint me red and call me a three dollar hooker, could I have picked two more contrasting films?

The first is a serious, grim, black and white thriller.

The second is a primary coloured, warm-hearted comedy film based on a cult TV show.

 

This 2004 comedy film only (ONLY) works because of two things. 

1. The chemistry between Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson. They're sweet together, you like them. You like them being together. It works
2. The obvious love the cast and crew have for Starsky and Hutch.

The film seems like a warm, loving homage rather than re-boot or trying to tread new ground. If neither of these two points worked, the entire project would have collapsed in my eyes. However, they both work and the film ends up being uneven but hugely entertaining. 

 

Bringing in cameo roles from the original Starsky and Hutch, David Soul and Paul Michael Glaser confirms that this is a film that copies the original to almost exact details, part of the reason this as a concept works is that cop shows of that era were so over the top and almost hilarious that in making a film in the same vein, the film can't help but be a comedy. A knowing nod here and there and you have a proper comedy film that simultaneously works as a piece of love towards the TV show.

Capably directed by Todd Phillips, the film works as a sort of prequel to the TV show, showing the origins of the duo as they were forced together and had to work out their differences. Of course this is now horribly cliched but the film knows and plays up to that fact to be as cliched as possible, to pull out all the stops.

"You two deserve each other!"

 

As a film, it's not as funny as you'd hope a comedy film can be but it's a lot more charismatic than it has any right to be.

Watch thirty minutes of it and see. You might just like it.

 

Trailer here:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15

Good evening to you all.

 

Riding high on the wave of creation and success like Patrick Swayze in Point Break, Film Flare is pushing the boat out on mixed, unprofessional metaphors.

 

It's raining hearts of stone.

 So the past week or so has been quite busy for going to the old cinema-teque, firstly The Woman in Black on Sunday and also on Monday with another film called Chronicle.

 

 

I actually first heard of Chronicle early last week. A few people I knew had watched it without really meaning to and had spread the word that it was good and worth a watch. A brief Bing search later had revealed that actually it IS critically quite good (IMDB + RT).

 

So I popped along to the old cinema-teque (it's french, yeah?) and I was amazed! 

Such amazement I shall try to form into words starting from....now:

 

I was completely blown away by pretty much every element of this film. The direction by Josh Trank is fast, innovative and will be explained in more detail later. The brilliant script by Max 'Son of John' Landis is funny, potent and natural, helped along by a strong cast of actors who I'd never seen before but each and every one of them are fantastic. 

So, as I just mentioned, Chronicle was written by 26 year old Max Landis. Until Chronicle, he'd only written screenplays for short films and this is his first full length script. It's a large amount of pressure because due to the nature and tone of the film, if the script was anything less than natural then the film would have no where near as powerful and Max didn't disappoint. Each of the principal three characters are recognisable but never cliche, their dialogue is natural even when events become supernatural and yet the script sounds like something high school teenagers would say.

 

Speaking of which. These are the three principle actors. Without going all CrimeWatch on you, I want you to recognise their faces:

 

Dane DeHaan as Andrew

 

Alex Russell as Matt

 

Michael B. Jordan as Steve

All three are so good. Surprisingly for high school teenagers, they didn't irritate the shit out of me. Usually when I see a high school teenager in a film or TV show, my first instinct is to sprint to B&Q and buy Dulux paint so I can throw it into my eyes and ears so I hear Martian Lipstick red (tm) and hear Equine Eye Explosion purple (tm) instead of seeing a six foot grinning burk who's almost always called Trey or Trent or Brey saying "Bro" a lot. 

*deep breaths*

But anyway, all three make very compelling and different characters and I applaud every one of them.

 

So alongside the fantastic script and actors, it is the direction that most deserves my praise, and it shall get it Sir!

So the film is shot from the perspective of 'everyday' cameras right? Mainly from the view of Andrew's video camera but also CCTV, Police Car cameras, etc. It provides a refreshing change from just one viewpoint when the view shifts to another camera but I suppose if I were that way inclined, I could argue about the subtext of daily surveillance through CCTV etc.

Several things differ from other films of similar stock and they all work to Chronicle's advantage. The first is that in some films like Cloverfield, you end up being amazed at how Hud (hahaha!) is such a  good camera man for someone who has never used one before, capturing details just right in correct focus etc. In Chronicle, the action happens in front of the camera because it's being telekinetically lifted by Andrew. Not only does this means that some shots track, etc rather than remain static, it also means the camera has an actual physical presence in the action. One bit in particular shows this when something hits the camera and it spins and drifts as if weightless as it slips from Andrews tele-grip. It's innovative and reminds you that the camera is there as an object in the film rather than a window not referred to or interacted with. 

The characters play to the camera, make references to it. The film reminds you it's there. Rather than Coverfield (again), where it's set up as to why things are being filmed and then ignored throughout the rest of the film. It feels more natural. And in a film like this, keeping things natural and realistic is the key to the films success. It is because of the previous Cloverfield point that a lot of people are put off the 'handheld camera' style. It feels like a gimmick rather than a plot point. This is not a mistake that occurs in Chronicle. 

 

The story is simple but functional. Some elements are left as mystery but since we only know the events the priniciple characters know, it makes sense that we wouldn't know more than they do. It would unbalance the relationship between viewer and viewed which in a more traditionally made film makes sense but here it would feel false. The relationship between the three characters is also the main reason the film works on an emotional level. But again, this is in part to the actors and again, the script.

 

All in all, a fucking good 84 minutes of your life.

(84 minutes is long enough that the film never drags or wears out its premise, good show!)

 

Trailer:

 

 

 

 

14

Guten tag meine kinder.

 

Wilkommen aus meine fourtheenth Film Flare blog entry, this entry will be jam packed with interesting and educational material, apart from speaking German, which I can't do. Ich nichten sprechen German, ja?

 

So films. Yes, that's why we are here.

I was in Lahndahn Tahn this weekend and popped along Piccadilly way to a nearby cinema to view the James Watkins adaption of the blood twisting stage play (based on the novel) The Woman in Black.

 

 

Now unless your eyes are very much malfunctioning, that is indeed Daniel Radcliffe, A.K.A Harry Potter. An actor who I actually really like as a person and I hope that he manages to continue beyond Harry Potter even though the chances of him having a more successful series of films is pretty much nil. The main reason I'm so confident of this is that the Harry Potter series of films is the highest grossing series of films EVER (proof) with nearly £5 Billion (almost $8 billion).

Damn son!

 

Anyways, written by Jane Goldman (who also wrote X-Men: First Class and the quality Kick-Ass) and directed by fellow Brit James Watkins (please if you can stomach it watch Eden Lake!), this adaption is a perfectly functional horror film. Unlike the current trend of horror films which sacrifices scares for gore, this film is mostly about atmosphere and tension rather than violent scenes.

However, I must express my surprise at the 12A rating. 

I don't usually give a damn about film ratings but the tone and story of the film is dark in places and there are one or two scenes involving 'incidences' with children that are certainly not for the easily squeamish. 

The film appears to follow the several classic 'horror film' tropes. A stranger coming to an unsettled area and ignored by the locals. Much like in the vein of classic horror films like The Wicker Man, it is these scenes that successfully ratchet up tension whilst simultaneously introducing secondary characters.

 

If 'The Wicker Man' makes you think of this man, then please die!

 

The Woman in Black is no exception and the supporting cast may not be given any material that offers fresh new light on well worn characters, but they succeed in giving the scenes in the town an unsettling edge. 

It is not only the characters that are old fashioned, the 'ghost in a haunted house' idea isn't exactly new either. However, much like my previous point, it is done to a high standard here. The house in particular is exceptional. Credit must be given to Watkins, who manages to squeeze every drop of tension from the external shots of not only the house, but the town and the marsh. 

 

However, this film really exploited my (mildly irrational) fear of toys. I don't know what satanic toy factory they plucked these clowns, monkeys, dolls, etc but they are creepy as shit!

The internal scenes in the house act like the nighttime scenes from The Blair Witch Project, you know something bad is going to happen. You just know it. But how and when, that is how they string you along for a surprisingly long time before the jump. And sometimes they are intense. And as the film goes on, it gets more intense, more prolonged. 

Having already seen the play, I knew the general idea and story but this was also played on. There are a few scares in the play where nearly identical things occur on the screen, you anticipate the same scare......it doens't happen. What? Then *BAM*. It was clever. I liked it. Some moments in particular are terrifying and there are mercifully few jumps where a guy enters the room suddenly shouting 'Arthur!' (...Kipps, the Daniel Radcliffe character). 

The film almost enjoys showing you the approach, an out of focus shot of a humanoid shaped figure, an opening door. Again, nothing you haven't seen before but if done well (as it is here), it works remarkably well. The more sudden shocks are good too. What I liked most was how they manage to make well trodden ideas remain scary. The over-arching theme of this review then, if condensed to a single sentence would be this:

 

'Nothing new but everything is done to a good standard.'

 

All in all, a nicely old fashioned scary haunted house film that succeeds on the scares. It may not be as unendingly nerve shredding as a lot of modern horror films but the scares are there and they work. The story is passable and Daniel Radcliffe has it in him to leave Harry Potter behind because he does actually have a level of talent and this could be that step for him. 

Worth a watch.

 

Trailer:

 

 

 

 

 

13

Here it is, at last.

 

The fifth and final part of my  'Best of 2011' films. So far you've all shared the many highs and non-existent lows but now this esteemed series of five films must come to an end.

But what an end!

 

In a year filled with many cinematic highlights, it is strangely reassuring to know that an English/French joint production of a great British spy novel that is the antithesis of Bond directed by a Swede would stand out as a particular highlight.

 

 

Astonishingly restrained and painfully atmospheric, TTSS (as it shall be known) is a triumph of characterisation and tone. At its helm is the irritatingly talented Tomas Alfredson, who infuses the film with creeping camera work and nasty colours, squallid settings and he single handedly destroyed any childhood dream I had of being a spy. The confidence he shows in his direction by making the film slow, underwhelming and deliberate is astounding for a director with not too many films under his belt (Note: watch the AMAZING Let the Right One In)

The frankly legendary Gary Oldman plays the central character George Smiley, a retired spy. A drab, lonely, intelligent husk of a human being, a man of few words and fewer actions but an entire biography etched onto his face and eyes. It is as a result of this role that Gary Oldman Finally (FINALLY) has a Best Actor nod at the Academy Awards as well as a BAFTA nomination. To be fair to the awarding bodies, it is a mesmerising performance and one that may possibly exceed the Alec Guiness interpretation of George Smiley back in the wonderful 1979 BBC version of TTSS.

Besides Smiley, there is a large roster of other characters, each capably played by an INSANE roster of acting talent. Mr Darcy, Sherlock Holmes, Anton Gorodetsky, Bane,  Toby Jones, Mark Strong, and gravel-voiced Alien incubation unit John Hurt are all here.

Pop goes the weasel!

 The supporting cast are hugely impressive, each subtly different from each other. Toby Jones in particular has the aura and look of a man who fits in perfectly into this grotty little world. Tomas Alfredson directs this stellar group of individuals with style and confidence, giving each character enough screen time to impress themselves efficeiently onto the viewer. No small feat considering the amount of characters that need to be juggled.

 

The single most surprising thing about the film is just how 'ordinary' it seems. Not ordinary in a technical sense but the characters, the settings and character's interactions just seem normal. There's no car chases, gunfights, cool monologues, it's just ordinary men who happen to be working where they are. The author of the novel, Le Carre, used to work for MI5 and MI6 and you get the impression that the film accurately translates the enviroments and interactions that people in that situation may have really done. I have to go back to Alfredson's direction because it is an incredible example of pace and tone. There are maybe one or two individual points where an event 'suddenly' occurs and it is exactly that: sudden.

The slow pace may not be for all, especially if the story doesn't grab you. But you become so immersed in the film (helped by the authenticity), that I personally found not one dull moment in the film. I was amazed at how anti-climatic the events leading towards the end are handled, there is no real set piece or sudden twist. It fits in with the tone of the film extremely well.

 

All in all, if you have a quiet night and want to watch an intelligent, well acted, engaging 'real' spy film. Stick this in and pay attention.

A mighty fine film.

 

Trailer:

 

That music gives me the goosebumps too!

12

The more observant reader would have noticed there should have been a Film Flare Film Diary (of FFFD as it shall be known) yesterday. 

To be frank. The only films I watched last week were at the cinema which will have their own articles and I'm still working out what to do on the occasional week I DON'T watch a film.

 

But this week you will be reading about:

• My 5th and final 'Best of 2011' film
• The Woman in Black
• Chronicle

Starting tomorrow with an all new Film Flare entry.

11 (Film Diary 4: 30/01/12 - 05/02/12)

Evening one and all.

 

It is time to document through wit and elocution the films what I watched last week yeah?

Much like last week, the two (only 2 I know!) films I perused are from vastly different genres, eras and etc etc etc.

 

Alright, no time like the present:

 

Jeepers Creepers 2 (2003)

This 2003 sequel to the suprisingly not-bad Jeepers Creepers takes place only several days after the events of the first film. A narrative that works to the films advantage as it works in the incredible events of Jeepers Creepers into an interesting backdrop to this film, it is referenced in radio broadcasts, police radios and so on. In terms of watching the film, having seen the first film and hearing of the events grounds the occurances into a realistic reaction to such extraordinary circumstances.

 

Victor Silva returns to the helm after JC1 (as it shall be known) and it is quite interesting the difference in style and tone between the two films. The first was a quiet, unassuming cast terrorised by the Creeper (for it is he), the plot was small scale and it was dark, close and tense. By contract the second is quite bright, fast, frantic, and you see a LOT more of the Creeper, something that doesn't quite work out because at several points the Creeper is played much more for laughs than he ever was in JC1. 

He's also wetter.

Note the visual change (in many respects) between JC1:

And JC2 (as it shall be known):

This picture perfectly sums up why JC2 is NOT as good as JC1, the focus is almost all on the Creeper. In the first film an actually imposing figure with a REALLY imposing vehicle. In the second, winking at kids and licking windows (no joke, this happens in the film.)

The rest of the focus is therefore at his victims. In JC1, Justin Long and Gina Phillips are real (for a horror film) teens, well acted and nice. Therefore what happens grabs you and you empathise, which is the core of horror films and the 'gut punch' they have. In JC2 you just have token jocks and cheerleaders getting picked off one by one in the standard horror film narrative. The only real surpise the characters create in the viewer is a slightly bizarre but surprisingly subtle racial element that I was not expecting from the film. Oh, and it has a psychic cheerleader.......

The furrowed Ray Wise provides the 'acting' (as it shall be known), mainly looking intense and then angry. I'm a fan of Ray Wise ever since Twin Peaks (watch this show!) but he's written into a textbook 'revenge' role and never really gets a chance to act past the clumsy material in front of him. However, he is by far the best actor here. And fun to watch if nothing else.

 

I guess at it's heart, it is enjoyable in a guilty sort of way. No real surprises at work here, it's a perfectly well made film but no where near as successful a horror film as its predecessor.

Five out of Ten Jocks.

Trailer here:

 

 

(Oh, and keep your peepers peeled for the intended 2013 release of the 3rd in what looks to be a trilogy. Jeepers Creepers 3: Cathedral.)

 

 

The Rock (1996)

Yes, after viewing 'Enemy of the State' last week (read here.), I had a hankering to watch something so hilariously OTT that only Jerry Bruckheimer could imagine it.

 

Remember him?

 

Once again BBC iPlayer (as it shall be known) didn't let me down. One lonely night, I had a choice of injecting heroin into my eardrums with a salty syringe or watching something.

Luckily, fate was on my side.

 

When my ears had finished 'leaking' (as the Doctor's called it) and the dragon I was chasing had fled from my sight, I fired up the old internet and started to watch The Rock.

 

I wasn't disappointed.

It is the most insane movie I've seen in some time. It has Sean Connery as a cheeky nod to Bond, playing a falsely incarcerated Secret Service Agent who had, at one time, escaped the eponymous 'Rock' (Arcatraz). Joining Mr Connery is the INSANE Nicolas Cage, playing an INSANE bio-chemist cum action hero called Stanley Goodspeed.

The problem with this vein of action film is something I have recently discovered.

 

Action films in the 80s were easy. Good guys were Soldiers, or Cops, of FBI. They were people who explained away their training. Bad guys were bad, mercenaries, robot assassins, foreigners, drug dealers, mobsters, businessmen. It was easy to explain away their villainy when you looked at him:

"Of course he's the bad guy, he has a goatee."

"Oh what a bastard, snorting cocaine off  that hooker's breasts whilst laughing insanely."

Predator, Terminator, Die Hard, Lethal Weapon. These films were insane, testosterone fuelled metaphors for manliness. Biceps, grease, sweat, blood, stubble, woman, chases, punching, hilarious fight scenes, one liners and a total disregard for life or property.

These films are ridiculed as macho toss fests (as they are known), made with incredible skill, vision and (in some case) acting but the finished product seems dated.

 

My problem with Bruckheimer films (in general) is that they are no different in almost every respect. The effects are better, the budgets are bigger but you still end up with two wisecracking policemen gunfighting Hiatians every three minutes whilst implausibly beautiful woman are drapped over them. 

These films are called 'awesome' by men aged between 16 to 25 whilst Predator (for instance) is resigned to the shelves of men over the age of 30. The Rock is just as OTT as Predator is, the acting is worse, the plot even more paper thin to allow gratuitous violence and action, there's a car chase which is SO retarded it stand out in a film full of retardation. It's as if Michael Bay received a personal missive from God saying that if he doesn't show a Hummer or a Ferrari in his films, one of his children will perish. It's stupid.

 

It should be dated, like people consider Predator to be dated (and they do, horror of horrors!).

If I'm honest, I enjoyed watching The Rock, it's a similar guilty pleasure to action films of the 80s. With the added benefit of Nicolas Cage. And to be fair to him, Ed Harris makes a very good villain/not really villain. 

But for films like The Rock, Con Air etc, there will be a time in the not too distance future when you'll just outgrow them. They won't bring out the 16 year old boy who thinks that screeching 'Woooo!' in a gunfight is cool anymore. Maybe it's happened to you already. I'm not too far off.

 

Five out of Ten massive explosions.

 

Trailer:

 

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.....