Film Flare

34 (Film Diary 15: 23/04/12 - 29/04/12)

Good day everyone.

 

No idle chit-chat this time, we're going straight in.

(Apart from that sentence.....and these parentheses.)

 

Kidulthood (2006)

This drama film about London youths is bleak, depressing, violent, shocking and simultaneously deep, stylish and witty. Much like the characters portrayed in the film, you think you what is going on and that you've seen it all before. The greatest strength of the film is not letting you down in that respect by delivering what you expect whilst at the same time, providing a bit more dimension and depth than you'd expect.

 

When a girl at at a West London school kills herself because of bullying, the students are given a day off for mourning and this film is about that 24 hour period. Needless to say, there is not much mourning done by the principle characters as they prepare for a house party in the evening and on the way they drink, do drugs, rob, flirt and do sexy things.

Without wishing to sounds like the old man I'm not, considering the film follows the exploits of these characters and they are meant to be around 15 years old, they do a lot of dubious and highly illegal activities. However, as I mentioned earlier, whilst you initially see the characters and judge them instantly as hoodies/thugs etc, throughout the film it is made clear that everyone has a surprisingly deep character, something which I started to notice more and more as the film went on.

The tone of the film is pretty unrelenting though in its approaches of violence and revenge, something which may be in place to put the viewers in a similar state of mind as the characters. However, the effect of all this is that film operates mostly as a diary of single events with not much narrative driving each event. It ends up being 'meet up - flirt with lady - rob short - beat up man' without a consistent narrative drive linking each event together.

That being said, the film is remarkably well acted and directed. A directorial style is present which propels the film along and keeps the various characters and their stories linked together. Add to this a fiery soundtrack of UK rap (Dizzee Rascal et al.) and you have a style of film that adds onto the power of the events themselves.

All in all, a potent and thought provoking look at inner city London.

 

Trailer:

 

 

 

Iron Man (2008)

 

The first Marvel Studio film entirely produced in-house had a lot riding on its shoulders. The possibility of creating a new franchise beyond the co-production of the X-Men films, the Blade films as well as introducing another 'layer' of superheroes beyond the big three (Batman, Spiderman, Superman). 

Initially, when news reached me of the original story being updated and set in contemporary times instead of the Vietnam setting of the comics, I assumed this was the first of many rusty nails that would make Iron Man a failure.

 

Luckily I was proven extremely wrong. The film instantly grips your short and curlies (as they are fondly known) and doesn't let go until end credits. Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark/Iron Man was a masterstroke of casting, he brings the perfect amount of arrogance and unpleasantness balanced with the change in attitude and character that being Iron Man brings. Opposite Downey Jr. is the frankly stunning Jeff Bridges as Obadiah Stane, a fantastic character with enough depth and drive to make him more than Downey Jr's equal. Much like Loki in Thor and Avengers Assemble, Marvel knows that the secret success to any good superhero film is the villain and they have the material to select the very best and bring them into a real world setting successfully.

I say real world rather than comic because director Jon Favreau goes to extraordinary lengths to give the film a realistic setting, even the idea of creating an Iron Man comes naturally to Tony Stark given the situation he finds himself in and the actual building and refinement of the Iron Man suit is built on a bed of science and extremely realistic. It is a joy to watch Tony Stark build his suit and even peripheral machines and AI are given playful and entertaining personality with very little effort. 

 

This film had a lot resting on its shoulders and it more than succeeded, spawning a direct sequel in 2010 and a third being filmed soon for release next year as well as the runaway success of Avengers Assemble. 

Marvel hit the jackpot. 

 

Trailer:

 

 

 

Contagion (2011)

 

And finally, the third film in the list of 'doesn't have much in common with the previous two films' is Contagion, a 2011 medical based thriller posing an eerily accurate depiction of a lethal epidemic. Created with assistance from the CDC, the film spans a period of time from discovery through control to cure with (seemingly) a very high level of accuracy.

Steven Soderbergh very ably intertwines several individual narratives and characters successfully, each one a different aspect and angle of the epidemic. Also, considering the not terrible cast list (wiki), Soderbergh controls every aspect of this complex and intelligent film with a mastery of balancing the micro with the macro, mainly by using Matt Damon.

Damon is the emotional core of the film, whilst other characters face trials and hardships, it is Damon's character the film returns to as the small-scale individual effect of the large scale epidemic. Other characters work for the CDC or WHO, others are scientists or epidemiologists but Damon is just a man, a human being on the ground. His story is therefore the most painful, emotional and scary. Damon himself is more than capable of carrying the film on his own, acting with aplomb.

 

The film was described to me as a medical horror, a term I found didn't do the film justice. It was not horrifying in the way I had assumed, I would say it was more of a medical thriller. It makes you think and uses suspence and tension rather than exploiting a fear which horror films usually do. I personally did not find the film scary, I found it a fascinating study of what would (probably) happen if a very nasty epidemic did spread.

Although if you are a germaphobe, you will be terrified. Soderbergh lingers the camera on surfaces that could and would cause a contagion to spread, you end up being able to trace the spread back to its Ground Zero as the characters do.

 

One of my main problems with the film was that I found it very hard to place events that occur within the overal narrative structure. It is not an overly long film but characters would get sick, recover or whatever and I couldn't place if the narrative was near the end. I suppose this adds to the realism but it wasn't structured like a regular film. It threw me off at several points where I assumed the end of the film and yet it continued. 

Overall, I was very impressed with the technical ability of the film, the soundtrack adds a nasty electronic pulsing to the proceedings which helped the film's tone. The main successes of the film are the near real feel of it as well as using one character as the emotional core of the film to identify mostly with.

Impressive, and interesting.

 

Trailer:

 

 

That's it, that's all there is (for now!)

 

 

29 - Bel Ami review

 

 

Based on the novel by Guy de Maupassant, this film documents the rise (and set backs) of George Duroy, a slimy ex-army officer as he sleeps his way through every worthwhile woman in Paris. Starting as a penniless and lonely man, he rapidly carves a path through the upper levels of Parisian society, acquiring a lot of wealth and standing on the way.

Interestingly enough, the acting in the film is actually pretty good. The three main actresses, Uma Thurman, Kirstin Scott Thomas and Christina Ricci all do remarkably well with relatively weak material. Each Fleshes out their characters beyond the 'three generations of lovers' scenario would suggest. 

Even Robert Pattinson, Old R-Patz himself surprised me. To be honest, he plays an utter shit in the film. Patterson said early on that the character was completely amoral but  even so, the character is a true bastard. And R-Patz plays a shit pretty well, he is required to smolder a lot (no doubt a tricked learned from his Twilight days) but he is actually a very unpleasant character and you have to admire the gusto with which Pattinson throws himself into the role.

 

The film also looks good. The period costumes and settings are convincing and there is a suitably large visual gap between the cold, dark poorer areas of Paris and the brighter, warmer rooms of the well-off. The cast are also made up in a convincing style but I was made aware of how the actors and actresses move and emote facially in a very modern way that inadvertently creates an anachronism with the period setting of the film.

 

However, whilst the look of the film is fantastic and the acting is pretty good, it is there that the strengths of the film end. The story overall skips all over the place, one scene leading straight into the next shows a difference of character so strong, you wonder what revelation you missed to caused the change. Some of the script is mighty odd, leading to situation where a character is lounging around in her underwear talking about the weight of grain being shipped to Algiers. 

My main complaint about the film is what I consider a major flaw. It is a film about seduction and sex and whilst there are sex scenes in the film, they are remarkably un-sexy. I guess I was just hoping that for a film filled with good looking people, the sex scenes would have had more intimacy to them. They just felt a little weak. A flaw exacerbated by the tone and nature of the film.

 

So in summery, not the worst film I've seen all year but certainly not far from the bottom. It looks great but in the end, looks can only take you so far.

(Yes, I did just end that review with a moral that applies to a character in the film. If you are reading this and you are from a major news or entertainment publication and you do need film reviews that end in such a witty and cheeky fashion, please email me.)

 

Trailer:

 

 

26 - 21 Jump Street review

 

Through intense and extensive research, I discovered that the film 21 Jump Street is based on a television show of the same name that ran from 1987 for four years and starred a young and quote 'disarmingly handsome' Johnny Depp.

Consider yourself disarmed.

 

The tone of the original show was dramatic. A series about cops posing as high school students has the potential for comedy but the show ran the premise straight and (in some cases) hard hitting about social issues of the day involving children and schools. 

 

The film has an identical premise, undercover po-leece in  high school but unlike the TV show, the film is an out and out comedy.  This works heavily in the film's favour, firstly the film retreads the ground of the show from a completely new direction, so it never feels old fashioned or out of touch. Secondly, whilst the film is a touching homage to the television show, the comedy element is drawn from the changes between schools (and kids) now and then. Where the bullying jock character was king of hill when he was in school, he now finds himself out of place among the eco-friendly, alternative kids of today. By reversal, the bullied nerd finds himself a new place at the head of the table in schools today.

 

Surprisingly enough, the two leads Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum create a touching relationship between themselves. Between the comedy is actually a real friendship and a strong emotional core which anchors the narrative. The film would not be half as successful if either of the two leads were not as good as they are. Even though it is obvious that Hill is the better of the two actors in a comedic sense of the word, Tatum is still human enough to support his side to an equally high standard. 

Ice Cube has the best lines in the film and every scene he is in ranks amongst the film's best. His Capt. Dickson is both hilarious, gets great lines and turns an entire trope (the angry, black captain) on its head. 

 

The film has action scenes and these are as well done, as absurd and as over the top as they were in Pineapple Express. A car chase seems bizarrely placed in the film but it highlights and parodies several action cliches and doesn't detract from the film at all. The gunfights are well done (surprisingly so) and are funny due to inherent misplacement within the film. They don't belong in the film and are played dead straight and they work.

 

Overall though, the film is consistently funny and very entertaining to watch, I was surprised at the rating they were aiming for (15 in the UK) and they managed to fit an awful lot of language, drinks, drugs and violence into that rating. It's never nasty or malicious but always good fun. Add on top of this a well-documented cameo from two original actors (Depp and Peter DeLuise) and you realise that the film is a fine and loving remodeling of the original show in a similar vein to Starsky and Hutch but unlike that film, 21 Jump Street actually attempts to go in a different direction and therefore break new ground.

 

A very fine film and a great night in.

 

Trailer:

 

 

25 (Film Diary 10: 19/03/12 - 25/03/12)

Evening there.

 

Been a quiet week for the turbulent relationship between films and myself. I went to the cinemateque to see 21 Jump Street and my review will be out later this week (Sneak preview: It's well funny and that!)

 

Apart from that, the only film I've seen this week is:

 

Hannibal (2001)

This sequel to the seminal Silence of the Lambs is a mixed meal. At times gripping, thrilling and beautiful, at other times it is confusing, slow and clumsy. One of the best parts of the film is Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter, he IS Hannibal and whilst not as menacing, intelligent or as complex as he is in 'Silence', he is none-the-less one of the film's stronger points. 

The lack of return of Jodie Foster as Clarice Starling is one of the film's weaker points. Julianne Moore tries her best but doesn't have the emotional vulnerability and connection with Dr. Lecter that Foster had. Also, Julianne Moore slips in and out of the old West Virginian twang that played such a surprisingly large role in 'Silence' far too noticeably. 

This is not one of Director Ridley Scott's best films and the direction is not the reason why. The film looks fantastic, the city of Florence in particular becomes a gruesome and macabre setting for the grisly proceedings. Several scenes in particular had me feeling quite nauseous, although possibly in part to blurring motion rather than the events in the scene. 

 

The film, adapted from the novel by Thomas Harris follows a very similar narrative and the story idea itself is simple and effective. One of Lecter's victims wants revenge. Simple, powerful and eerie, an unrecognisable Gary Oldman (seriously) plays Mason Verger. A single-minded wealthy man who had the misfortune of crossing Lecter's path.

 

The main issue I have with the film is that it's surprisingly heavy handed. In this, at time it appears that Lecter is a redemptive moral story instead of a brilliant serial killer. His relationship with Starling again is too subtle, the fondness from Silence is still present but it's not as a awkward or as powerful as the scenes between Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins. The ideas of corruption and redemption are further weaved around an idea of romance. Something that was hinted at but never as explicit as it is here. 

So instead of a brilliantly complex psychological thriller with well crafted characters and razor tight scripting, you have a slightly clumsy, pseudo religious horror film. It's not bad per se, but it pales in comparison to films in the series both older and newer.

 

So to sum up, a surprisingly gruesome (even by Silence of the Lamb standards), uneven but passable film. 

 

Trailer:

 

 

 

Ok, so coming up later this week:
21 Jump Street review

I might go see The Hunger Games too, if I do, I'll write that up too.

 

Enjoy yourself! 

24 (Film Diary 9: 12/03/12 - 18/03/12)

Well hello there.

 

Thanks to the power of the internet, it is now possible to find this fine collection of words in many different locations:

 

Twitter: 

 

Facebook:

 

Technorati:

 

IMDB:

 

 

 Projected into the night sky over Moscow:

 

 Laser etched onto Jupiter's moon, Io.

 

Inscribed into the Luxor obelisk in Paris.

"One of the biggest strengths of the film is..."

 

 

This fine organ is now approaching what is ominously called 'Phase 2', a slightly larger online presence.

Welcome to episode 9 of FFFD (Film Flare's Film Diary if you didn't know!).

 

Two films now and a fine, FINE trailer:

 

The Fifth Element (1997)

 

 

The Fifth Element is a triumph of style. Everything looks and sounds fantastic, from the Jean Paul Gautier created outfits to the varied and interesting soundtrack. Luc Besson co-wrote and directed this French science fiction film that is so over the top, madly unhinged in places (a space-ball of pure evil phones a guy!) and infectious that I can't help but be carried along for the (occasionally) bumpy ride.

The overall style of the film flicks nicely between clean and technological spaces to piles of rubbish, tiny apartments and gritty, foggy parts of the world. The characters are pristine and beautiful, dressed in futuristic attire and haircuts, but get mucky and bloodied within seconds.

 

 

The same duality applies to the story , flicking madly between glorious action, absurd space opera and sappy love story often within the space of a scene. 

 

To be honest, the story is not the film's strong point. I can admit that willingly. It's a simple 'Oh no! Earth is in peril, let us go on an adventure' type film. But the adventure is the film's strength and it plays to it with relish. Bruce Willis gives one of his finer performances and Gary Oldman plays his baddie with a delicious sense of fun and pantomime. Milla Jovovich (in an early film performance) plays the 'perfect being' Leeloo with a surprisingly level of range and emotion. She also looks the part. Also looking like he's having all together a whole heap of fun is Ian Holm.

 

All in all, a ridiculous film.

But I would put cold copper coins on the table to say you'd be hooked after twenty minutes.

 

Trailer:

  

 

 

 

Blade Runner (Director's Cut) (1982)

 

 

 

Two of Ridley Scott's science fiction films make it up there on my "All Time Favourites" list, Alien and this.

Having not seen any other version (of which there are several), all of the various differences do not concern me, it is simply a review of the Director's Cut that I shall be writing here.

This film is an utter masterpiece. Pure and simple.

 

In a similar style to The Fifth Element, this film also has an incredible set and production design. unlike The Fifth Element, this entire film is nasty and enclosed and dark and horrible. The world Scott created in this film is a retro-fitted slum essentially and a vision of a really quite nasty future. Each house and building has searchlights peering in, giving an impression of an all-knowing police force.

In fact, eyes and seeing play a huge part in this film:

 

 

 

SPOILERS!

From the Voight-Kampff tests zooming in on the eyes. Roy Batty visiting a genetic eye specialist. The mirror in the photograph looking like an eye and Roy's speech about what he has SEEN. This film is all about what we see and experience.

SPOILERS OVER!

 

 

The visuals of the theme are fantastic too, from the godlike Tyrell corporation's temple-designed room to the neon glow of street level and the influences of Chinese culture on the world Scott envisioned.

 

Harrison Ford is the Blade Runner of the title, a flawed ex-police given a job. Ford gives the best performance I've ever seen of him, an unsettlingly volatile man. But the real star lies with (one of my favourite actors) Rutger Hauer as replicant Roy Batty, a seething, intelligent, violent creation seeking out his creator to solve one of the most human problems of all. 

His final soliloquy on a roof top to Harrison Ford's Deckard is one of the MOST beautiful series of words ever uttered on film. You'd have to be a cold hearted bastard to watch that scene and not feel at least a strong emotional tug.

 

Actually having remarkably little in common with the novel it's based on 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep' works in the film's favour as the book is far too complex and confusing to turn into a feature film of any appreciable length. Instead, by taking a simple narrative idea and framing it in the world with some of the characters from the novel, you end up with an incredibly strong story that never seeks to confuse or confound you, with a 'bad guy' so compelling and human it crosses into anti-hero and anti-villain.

 

A fantastic film and one I will willingly watch again, a lot.

 

Trailer:

 

 

 

That's all for now folks.

 

APART FROM.

New Ridley Scott sci-fi film 'Prometheus' trailer 2 is out! My God! 

 

 

 

I AM SO FREAKING EXCITED! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23 - John Carter review

 

Like Edgar Rice Burroughs (or E.R.B as he shall be known, author of the John Carter novels) would have been, I am pretty amazed at the amount of money that was pumped into this film. Previous Disney live-action blockbuster Tron: Legacy took a mere $170 million to make, this film took a reputed $250 million at least.

To be honest, this is a film that should not have been made. A pulp sci-fi novel in the vein of my childhood stories, with aliens on mars, spaceships, princesses in distress seems so anachronistic with films of this generation. Films like Avatar (which I would most closely compare John Carter to) try so hard to appear socially relevant and in doing so, remove some of the joyful escapism that I crave when I go to the cinema. On top of this you include a huge budget and a lack of in-your-face advertising and it would seem that the film was doomed to fail.

 

That is one of several reasons I wanted to go see the film, I want this film to succeed. There are enough novels and stories to make a franchise of it and the idea of a series of films that are just pure fantasy and escapism without preaching eco-disaster appeals to me. 

 

But the film itself is so entertaining. 

It's not perfect by any means, let me get that out of the way, the pacing is sometimes uneven and the acting suffers at times.

I've read that the film should be compared to A Phantom Menace, something that I felt was unfair and did a huge disservice to John Carter. Again, I'll draw my lines and say that personally, I felt it was most similar to Avatar but with its head not up its own arsehole, a sense of fun and a tongue-in-cheek tone elevate John Carter from drudging sci-fi pap to adventurous and (at times) quite funny pulp science fiction at its most pure.  

After all, you couldn't make a totally serious film about a Confederate Captain during the American Civil War who is mysteriously transported to Mars to find himself in the middle of a bitter civil war. I mean Mars, really? There hasn't been a sci-fi film involving mars for years. 

 

But the film is fun, cheesy at times (very cheesy at times) but it is a whole heap of fun and I thoroughly enjoyed watching it. The director, Andrew Stanton (directed Finding Nemo and Wall-E) doesn't create the same images of pure beauty that you'd find in his animated films but the film overall is so pretty. The palette of mars (Barsoom as it shall be known) is muted but is offset by vivid, bright colours of the species and technology. $250 million gets you a whole heap load of very nice CGI and although it's not as cutting edge and as artistic as Tron:Legacy, the created world, cities and races are very well done and incredible to look at.

The (mostly British) cast also overall convey their roles well, Taylor Kitsch in particular makes for a very convincing, old fashioned hero. Long hair, loincloth, sword, facial hair torn straight from the cover of a pulp novel.

 

 

The rest of the cast include an unrecognisable Willem Dafoe (honestly, I didn't know he was in it until I wiki-ed the film!), Mark Strong, Dominic West, Bryan Cranston, Ciaran Hinds and Samantha Morton all help to create a roster of pulp-ish characters, the good guys are good, the bad guys are boo-hiss bad guys, the princess (Lynn Collins) knows how to handle herself in a sword fight.

It's not complex, it's not clever, but damn it is fun.

 

So I return to my earlier statement, this is a film that by all right should not have been made, but I'm glad it has and it provided me with two hours of joy. If you're in the mood for escapism and a rousing sci-fi adventure, it's well worth a watch!

 

Trailer:

 

21 (Film Diary 7: 27/02/12 - 04/03/2012)

Privyet to you all.

 

Welcome to the 7th FFFD. This will be a good one, easily one of the top seven I've EVER written. True story.

 

 

 

Nicolas Cage has appeared in some form or another on this blog a worryingly large amount of times. Possibly in as many as 50% of all the entries I've written his intricate mug has been flashed at you. I'll try to wean myself off him.

 

Anyway, films!

 

Rear Window (1954)

 

 

This Alfred Hitchcock masterpiece slides straight in to 2nd place in my All Time Favourite Hitchcock Films, straight behind the seminal North by Northwest. But it's a close contest, this film is a superior piece where everything clicks thanks to a level of skill very few film-makers possess.

 

By crucially withholding valuable sights and information from his characters and us, Hitchcock builds up a mystery and tension from nothing. By having his main character, L.B Jefferies (the superb James Stewart) wheelchair-bound with a broken leg in his apartment, he gives the film its central point, L.B's apartment windows. Every camera shot in the film is angled as if being shot from the very window L.B sits at, by doing so, we literally have the same field of view, see the same sights and people and crucially don't see so much and we feel like L.B, slowly piecing together a deadly narrative from half glimpsed sights. We act as the voyeur, peering in as L.B does. We are as guilty of his voyeurism as he is.

It's thrilling stuff.

 

On top of this, Hitchcock plays with the idea of theatre and the relationship of narration between the viewer and the viewed. Whilst creating an incredible, multi-layered stage for his various actors to participate on, each and every window is itself a further lens INTO the film, each apartment a small individual film, different characters and events that go on almost oblivious to the main story, only interesecting at certain points.

By doing this, Hitchcock also creates a piece of startling social satire, the idea that neighbours aren't neighbours. Almost no-one from neighbouring apartments interact at all, each having their own life without any contact with anyone from outside their own apartments. On top of this, you have Hitchcock bringing in ideas of marriage, the two main characters discuss the idea and yet, in the apartments around them, each mini-play is a variation of marriage:

• The initally newly wed couple who begin to argue and nag each other as the marriage disintegrates
• The flirtatious socialite dancer who hosts many men throughout the film but has a goofy-looking army sweetheart
• Two characters starting apart but through shared appreciation get together
• An uneventful couple who lead the kind of boring life L.B seems to want to avoid

 

This stuff just plays on in the background whilst the main narrative thrust of the film is building tension and momentum. It is an incredible production that can convey such a sheer amount of data to you without drowning out a simple story.

 

James Stewart and Grace Kelly are perfect for Hitchcock's style of close-ups on their faces whilst they witness events. You see the intrigue, the terror, the playful smile. They're both beautiful and expressive people. 

 

 

So you have an incredible level of control over script, cast, direciton that starts out completely innocently and slowly but surely starts to increase in tension, leading to a nerve shredding final thirty minutes.

And that is why Hitchcock is one of the few cinematic masters. It shows.

 

Trailer:

 

 

 

 

Terminator Salvation (2009)

 

 

Well this is a change.

 

Directed by the insanely named McG, this film really, really irritates me.

I've so rarely seen a film that starts out so promisingly and then dips in quality SO fast and SO hard. It starts with a human raid on a terminator facility, helicopters, guns, planes, robots, it's the kind of scene hinted at in previous terminator films but with the addition of helicopters and planes! 

 

 

 

But then, with the addition of gravel voiced beardy bell-end John Connor, who should at least have been a sympathetic character since I've been wishing him well-being in the previous three films (yes, even Terminator 3!), the film becomes sloppy, confused and ends in such an anger-inducing way I almost wanted to plunge my own fists through the screen.

 

That's not to say it has no reedeeming qualities. Alton Yelchin (who has almost always impressed me) is thrilling as a young Kyle Reece and gives the best performance on top of the best script to make the characters interesting, vulnerable and yet hardcore enough to be played by Michael Behn when he does eventually get sent back in time to stop John Connor's mum from getting iced in the 1st film.

The action is similarly thrilling, a certain scene in particular seemed to be heavily based off the sepia, dirty final chase from Mad Max 2 and it is thrilling stuff. Unfortunatly, the action towards the end of the film falls quickly into formula, another fight in a darkened factory setting. Oh! I've not seen that a thousand times before. 

 

In the end you end up with a completely sub-par film which had potential to be fantastic. Especially the last scene, I wanted to throw my ears into another dimension at the sheer cringe-inducing lines and actions these characters do. It's a real shame.

 

Trailer:

 

 

 

Right. That's it for another week of FFFD.

Peace!

 

 

 

 

20

A fine and merry evening to you all.

 

Those familiar with my increasingly sexy body of evidence will have noted the two entries, 17 and 18 (I've hyperlinked them for those people too lazy to click back to them) dealt with upcoming films coming out in this fine anno domini, 2012. 

I am now going to whip the old rug out from under feet as I present the slightly more entertaining:

 

2012 or Why This Year Might Be Hilarious For Films.

Starting with......

 

 

Wrath of the Titans (Release Date: 30/03/12)

 

 

Yeah, feel that Wrath! 

 

Anyway, have you actually seen 2010's Clash of the Titans? It had potential but was badly let down by several irritating points, the first and main one being that it was shit.

Considering it was a film involving hairy men and half-gods fighting brutal CGI creations with a cast that is incredible on paper (seriously!), it was really really dull. So many characters looked rugged, hairy and gruff that you found it hard to distinguish Perseus from Draco, Eusebius from Solon and Zeus from Hades. Which is a shame, the CGI impresses but the centerpiece of the film was always the Kraken, which on Google is impossible to find a picture of with its mouth closed.

 

 

Mum? Mum? Mum? Over here Mum? Mum? Mummy? Mom? Mother? Mum look? Mum?

 

 

 

It seems that the main centerpiece of CGI for the sequel is a Titan. 

 

 

 

But the CGI is impressive but it's not backed up by characters or a script that works. Even if they took the film in a more loving, camp direction it may have worked but it does for the whole 'gritty' edge with can work very well but without script or characters that flourish, it falls flat.

 

Once again, it looks to be a brainless film. The original Lobotomy of the Titan took nearly $485 million box office worldwide, easily beating it's production costs. They've chucked another $75 million at this so we'll see where that goes.

 

Trailer:

  

 

 

 

G.I Joe: Retaliation (Release Date: 22/06/12)

 

 

 

Have you actually seen the 2009 film, G.I Joe: The Rise of Cobra? It reminded me of that scene from The Abyss where the water forms up into a tube and interacts with the crew but instead it's raw stupidity forming together to make a fist to punch me repeatedly in the face.

 

 

 

Pow! Right in the kisser.

 

It was almost offensive. Again, similar to Clash of the Titans above, it had action and set-pieces galore but it was so bland. You could tell it was based on a toy line, you may as well have stop-motioned the dolls themselves Wallace and Gromit style and acheived the same effect. Instead you had a reasonable cast being wasted on hilariously poor script and story. 

 

But again, sequel time.

 

An even bigger and more impressive cast this time starring the favourites from the first film in addition to The Rock and Bruce Willis. The one hope for this film is the Rock, doing his Fast Five bit of being incredibly good fun to watch, sweating and muscle popping his way through the film. 

The film looks again to be filled with RETARDED action, a ninja fight on a rock-face....really?

Punching, swords, little exploding balls, guns, planes, motorbikes, badman men, sexy cleavage showing women, they know EXACTLY who they're marketing towards.

 

Watch the trailer: (Either you'll be grinning like an idiot or mashing the spacebar with your forehead in a vain attempt to suicide.)

 

Music is Glitch Mob's remix of Seven Nation Army.....easily the best thing in that trailer. No doubt!

 

 

 

The Three Stooges (Release Date: 15/06/12)

 

 

 

First of all here's the trailer for this comedy film:

 

 

Did you laugh? I didn't.

When my eyes had un-glazed themselves I panicked because I'd briefly thought I'd fallen into some level of nightmare where I'd never hear laughter again.

The ONLY good thing about that trailer is Kate Upton. Fact!

 

Snooki from Jersey Shore cameo? Grim? I stopped thinking pokes in the eyes were funny when I got poked in the goddam eye for the first time. 

 

I may be in the minority but I've never seen any of the OLD Three Stooges, at all. Not even Youtubed it. I could. But I won't. 

I may give this film a miss is the simple way of saying what I'm feeling inside.

 

 

And Finally (thank god!)

 

47 Ronin (Release Date: 21/11/12)

 

 

The revenge of the 47 Ronin is one of the most loved, most narrated Japanese tales of the Samurai and their Bushido code.

This is a Samurai film starring Keanu Reeves and set in a world 'of witches and giants'....

 

I'll keep my eyes open but the odds are stacked against this one.

 

 

19 (Film Diary 6: 20/02/12 - 26/02/12)

Hey.

 

It must be that time again, so prick up your ears, cock your eyes forward and further penis related actions.

 

Go McConaughey yourself!

 

If you are all here, and I am here too, leering through a screen like a diabetic at an ice cream van's window, it must mean it's time for a shiny new FFFD (as it is called).

And what films I have for you. Both brightly coloured, highly energetic films. One is about killing off some people to get with a girl (awwww!) and the other is a group of women making up imaginary planets and shit to escape their miserable lives (another awwww!)

 

Bang!

Let's go!

 

Scott Pilgrim vs The World (2010)

 

 

 

Spaced alums Edgar Wright and Nira Park once again take the familiar reins of Director and Producer respectively for this colourful and sweet adaption of the cult graphic novel by Bryan Lee O'Malley. 

Literally filled with both cultural and obscure references to video games, a blatent style that emulates manga and computer games and a cast of knowing, trendy nerds types, it's obvious who this film is for.

Me, basically.

An insane direction style by Edgar Wright has a TINY bit in common with previous works of his, Spaced, Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz mainly but this is something else. It is a comic come to life, you can almost make out individual frames. It's loving but devisive, it is possibly too fast, hyperactive and manic for a lot of people. However, Wright pushes the edges of animation, CGI and live action in really inventive ways that completely fits within the style of the film. Several scenes are just beautiful blends of animation (opening credits especially) and the CGI in one scene is stylish, inventive and fun.

 

The story is passable but inevitably takes the back seat to the style. However, it is sweet without ever becoming sickly and the 'message' that the film carries is actually a reasonably good, realistic one rather than vomit inducing tripe. 

Michael Cera is on usual form, likeable, naive and sweet. His Scott Pilgrim seems to stumble from one scene to another, one situation to another whilst trying to offend or insult or hurt as few people as possible. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is good too, awkward mostly but it matches what goes on the screen. A surprising number of recognisable faces appear in the film too, some of the 'Evil-Exes' that appear are brilliant roles and played top notch.

 

The soundtrack is a nice mix of indie and electro and is pumping enough to completely be awesome and epic. The featured band in the film Sex Bob-omb (haha!), stands side to side with Marc Bolan and so on.

All in all, a manic film. But an oddly sweet and human story at its core saves Scott Pilgrim from becoming all style a no substance.

 

Trailer:

 

 

 

 

 

 Sucker Punch (2011)

 

 

Hmm, ok. This is a film that fails where Scott Pilgrim succeeds, it's all style but there is no substance. It's like there is no developing of characters or plot that occurs throughout the entire film. 

But it looks and sounds INSANE!

 

First of all, the soundtrack is good. Very good. An occasional cover of a classic song like 'White Rabbit' is performed in a way that utterly fits in with the haunting nature of the film. 

It also looks so good too. Even beyond the obvious chosen hot women, the imagined worlds are beautiful in their absurdity. It's even more computer game than Scott Pilgrim, you will have a game at one point where you fly a big old robot through the trenches of WW1. It is Zach Snyder at his green-screened backdroping best, similar to 300

 

 

It's bizarre and insane and if you switch your brain off, it entertains. Rhyme not intended.

 

 

But if you ever stop to think about the film, it flops pretty badly. The overarching tone of female empowerment is slightly underwhelmed by the almost hilarious pseudo-schoolgirl clothing they wear and the fact that there is this old guy giving them orders and directions at every scene. It's a nice attempt but girls kicking-arse only goes so far.

The acting is passable, the guys are suitably slimey and unpleasant (apart from one) and the females do the best with what they have been given. But it's not much, the obvious draw of the film was the imagined worlds and the action that fills it, in the end, the connecting scenes means that it's like watching levels from a computer game rather than being another step of a powerful journey for freedom, which is where the film could have gone.

 

A shame.

Not great. Watch if you in one of those 'brainless' moods.

 

Trailer:

 

 

 

Until next time.

18

Good day folks.

In almost an exact replica of the last post, it is time for: 

 

2012 or Why This Year Might Be Really Really Good For Films. (pt2)

 

Starting again with.....

 

The Bourne Legacy (Release Date: 17/08/12)

 

 

 

Why I Am Excited:

It's been 10 years since the CIA should have learned to stop messing with their Agents and The Bourne Identity was released. Then a pretty good, extrememly entertaining film became a pretty good, extremely entertaining trilogy, ending in The Bourne Ultimatum in 2007.

They're having to push the 'There Was Never Just One' tag because this film deals with the aftermath of the events of the 'Bourne' trilogy, introducing a new Agent, played by the always amazing Jeremy Renner. 

 

Why You Should Be Excited:

A new director leaves behind the love it/hate it frenetic camera styles of Paul Greengrass (who directed Bourne Supremacy and Bourne Legacy). The director, Tony Gilroy  has previously directed the critically acclaimed Michael Clayton. As well as directing, he has also helped write the screenplays for the previous three Bourne films. So he knows the setting well.

 

 

 

 

Skyfall (aka James Bond 23) (Release Date: 26/10/12)

Note that there has been no official released poster so here is a publicity shot instead!

 

Why I Am Excited:

Casino Royale was ten steps in the right direction for Bond after Pierce Brosnan, Quantum of Solace was three steps in the wrong direction. So however you figure it, Daniel Craig's Bond is still seven steps in the right direction.

On drips of information being given out, it seems like this film is heading back to the more personal, intimate Bond and his relationships of Casino rather than balls-to-the-wall action of Quantum. This is a good thing. Also, having more of M (still being played by Judi Dench) is always a good sign, being the only strong female in Bond's life.

 

Why You Should Be Excited:

Shoulders:

 

 

I just thought I'd stick a picture of myself in one of my blogs, you know? Lounging by a  pool.

 

You also have the awesome Javier Bardem as a villian (hopefully not too similar to No Country For Old Men), sexy locations, sexy woman, sexy cars.....it's Bond. You know why you're excited.

Oh, and it's directed by Sam Mendes! 

 

Again. No Trailer out yet.

Will update with trailer when one is released.

 

 

Django Unchained (Release Date: 26/12/12)

Again, no official poster as yet exists. However, here is a rather good fanmade poster from Federicomancosu.

 

Why I Am Excited:

See that there poster up there? Quentin Tarantino.

That is why I'm excited. Whilst not quite hitting the tightness of his earlier films Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, his more recent films have been consumate displays of imitation and love. 

Another rip-roaring tale of revenge, this time about the revenge of a black slave on a cruel, vicious plantation owner (played by Leonardo DiCaprio).

I cannot wait.

 

Why You Should Be Excited:

Tarantino can pick his cast, in fact, he knows the cast is the one reason his films work so well. This cast looks to be good.

Jamie Foxx (I'm least sure about him), DiCaprio, Christopher Waltz, Kurt Russell, Samuel L Jackson and Tom Savini are joined by many others.

Add to this a new genre of film that Tarantino will explore, emulate and dissect and you have the pieces for a mighty fine jigsaw puzzle.

 

Again. No trailer currently exists for this film.

 

 

Brave (Release Date 13/08/12)

 

Finally. An official poster again.

 

 

Why I Am Excited:

Hands down, Pixar is the best animation studio in the world since the mid-90s. Since Toy Story, almost every film they've made has been pure gold, funny, touching, sad, truthful and entertaining.

A new Pixar film is something I am excited about, especially since the principal voice actor in it is the every incredible Kelly MacDonald.

Yay!

 

Why You Should Be Excited:

Scottish accents, token Pixar humour, slow-mo arrows, tiny bear-things, ginger hair, monsters, horses, kilts, incredible animation.

These are a few of your favourite things......I assume.

 

 

 

 

Dredd  (Release Date: 21/09/12)

 

 

 

Why I Am Excited:

It's not that the critically pissed-on 1995 Judge Dredd film (starring Sly Stallone) is a bad film, it's just that it did very little justice (haha!) to one of the most iconic and underrated comic book characters ever. 

If there is one film I want to succeed out of all the films I've mentioned in this blog and the last one, it's Dredd. Why? Because I love the character and there is enough decent core material (hint: a lot of core material) to make many films if the cast/characters/script etc are good enough.

 

Why You Should be Excited:

Franky my dears, I don't give a damn this time. I'm excited and if you're excited with me, that's good. If not, too bad.

 

Once again. Not a mouse's whisker of a trailer yet.

Watch this very attractice space!

 

 

Until next time folks, which'll probably be tomorrow FFFD entry.

After that, maybe a more entertaining peek at some film coming out this year that I'm NOT excited about, just to turn things upsidedown!