Films Recently Watched

[dr lopez]

wtf is going on

[auxien]

Watched The Little Prince the other night. Only read the book about 5 years ago, but I really enjoyed it...the film seemed like it was trying to be two films and it hurt itself by overextending. The outer space animation was gorgeous, and overall it wasn't bad, just not really anything I'd ever watch again.

[cwmbrancity]

layer cake - i thought this was sexy beast but i mixed up my early 2000s british crime thrillers.

 

Teddy Bass is comin' for you

 

[usagi]

 

psychoanalysis from a non-psychologist is not required under any circumstances. control the cancer. for your health.

Yale, Harvard, MIT, Stanford, UCLA, UofT, etc...

they all offer open courses

So anybody can study this stuff if they want to

 

 

which you haven't done, so stfu. and even if you had, the merit of posting your 'analysis' itt, given repeat demonstrations of how your brain (mal)functions on this forum, is questionable. kindly contain your redundant, intellectually bankrupt, autofellative shitposts to threads in which they may be safely ignored.

[LimpyLoo]

How would you know what I have and haven't studied? I spend like 2-4 hours a day watching music and psychology lectures., and have been for a few years now.

 

You seem to think that since you disagree with me, that I have roughly nothing of merit to say. I would never make that claim about you. I remember you said something nice about me once and immediately deleted it...

 

Have you considered that maybe, despite the fact that you loathe me, that maybe I do know enough about a couple topics, enough perhaps to offer my opinion?

Edited November 9, 2016 by LimpyLoo

[keanu reeves]

pssst

 

[LimpyLoo]

pssst

 

I would love it if Usagi blocked me

He shows up wherever I post and doesn't just merely contradict me

But suggests that I have nothing worthwhile to say about anything

Like I'm some 2-dimensional cartoon bad guy or something

 

I have not interest in blocking anyone myself

Usagi has a lot of insightful things to say and I often agree with him

But seems like his watmm experience might be improved by blocking me

[keanu reeves]

did someone say something? 

Edited November 9, 2016 by keanu reeves

[LimpyLoo]

I'm truly devastated that you blocked me, Keanu

*of course you're reading my posts anyway*

[keanu reeves]

my deluxe watmm experience

 

[caze]

I'm truly devastated that you blocked me, Keanu

*of course you're reading my posts anyway*

 

he doesn't even have you blocked, just did it temporarily so he could take a screenshot and make a 'funny' post.

[usagi]

yeah nah, I don't Ignore people generally, I skim over if I have to. lately I'm skimming a fucking lot, and not just cos of one clown. filtering out all the shitposts will lead to critical mass, my brethren - promoting good health is about is all about shitpost awareness and management to prevent its spread to the rest of WATMM's organs.

 

@Limp, if you had studied that stuff seriously, you would have started your post with that, cos why waste an opportunity to beat people over the head with your superior 'knowledge'? but you don't study anything, you just read shit on the internet and regurgitate it for imaginary internet friend points. that's why I dislike you, not because I have some personal problem with some guy I don't know. and you're remembering that "one nice thing" wrong.

 

just think before you fucking post and put some effort into making it balanced and readable, is it so hard?

Edited November 9, 2016 by usagi

[LimpyLoo]

Look, man:

I've said some deeply shitty things to you, things that were malicious and designed specifically to get under your skin, and that is genuinely not cool and I would take it all back if I could. As you know, I don't know really anything about you (beyond watmm) and so attacking your character like I have was way, way out of line. Luckily I seem to be doing it less and less of that as time passes, but anyway it's something I've been working on...

 

But anyway, I do study psychology and psychoanalysis, and I'm generally quite studious with my pet interests. But it sorta doesn't matter: I was just offering my thoughts on stuff.

You seem to think that I pretend to know everything, but really there's only a few subjects that I profess to know anything about: music, psychology, a bit of hard science here and there, game theory...two days ago I posted about how often Chen pwns me in debates because he understands history and economics way more than I do...your portrayal of me as a self-aggrandizing ego-maniac is not very accurate, and I don't think many folks here would agree with it. I mean hey, there's plenty of things wrong with me, but I don't think that's one of them.

[usagi]

again, you're making this overly personal.

[LimpyLoo]

again, you're making this overly personal.

You are painting me as 100% unreasonable and 0% knowledgable

Yes of course this is personal

[dr lopez]

having interesting things to say about movies has nothing to do with taking free classes online about psychoanalysis. i think that's why we want u to shut up

[AJW]

Don't let petty fools get to you.

Let's hear it.

Psychoanalysis-omania.

[Rubin Farr]

Idiocracy should be required viewing in all US schools now, grades K-Graduate School.  lol

[Squee]

 

 

 

Anomalisa

 

Dang, haven't been left from a film with so many thoughts and questions in quite a while. Cuts deep...what IS love?!

 

Does anyone have any good film analysis links on it? was reading up last night but only found a few fan theories

Charlie fucking Kaufman

Love that dude so much

Prolly in my top 5 artists of all time from any medium

 

I could give some psychoanalytic thoughts on it

But I have no idea what the hell everyone was tripping on in the hallway

Been waiting to watch it again but it's not on Netflix and my local video-rental place shut down so...

I loved Anomalisa in the most depressing possible. There were parts of it that annoyed me but I don't even remember what it was now?

Anyway, I think it was pretty straightforward interpretation-wise. It doesn't really require that big a psychological analysis... or am I missing something?

 

Okay, so, what was the source of all the dude's suffering, then?

 

 

Well, first of all, I don't think there's any reason to analyse this movie to death because it pretty much speaks for itself. It's about love and the dark sides of love just like every other Charlie Kaufman movie - you know, growing tired of the people you love and seeing them in a new light. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless is the obvious one. Adaptation is about being obsessive with the thing you love or trying to find that one thing you love.

But what you're looking for is probably the Frigoli syndrome or whatever it's called.

[Rubin Farr]

Alice Through the Looking Glass - this was great, I think it only bombed bc of Johnny Depp's personal problems.  I was a big fan of the first film, although a lot of people shit on it, it made $1 billion at the box office.  Not being so tightly tied to the books, they were able to explore a more original storyline set in Wonderland this time, the supporting characters were explored more in depth, the time travel element was well done, skitting thru different parts of Wonderland's past.  The effects were excellent, and more believable this time, the final action sequence of destroying time was also cool, and pretty much every character received a satisfying resolution and closure.

 

I think the poor box office returns sank this live action franchise, but it would have been interesting to see a crossover with the Pirates of the Caribbean movies,  IMO.

[patternoverlap]

Spotlight: Fantastic. Felt like a real, bonafied adult drama. No frills, stunts, or wtf stylistic flourishes. Just solid acting with a solid script. Was a bit strange seeing so much talent used in such a restrained way but it all worked beautifully imo.

[Suffocate Peon]

Hellavator

I don't recall downloading this film, I don't know how it ended up in my film folder, I can only surmise that I rapid torrented it along with others and furthermore I don't know why I picked it out of the hundreds of other films I could have watched. That's my review; I don't recall, I don't know how, I don't know why.

 

It's a sci fi that starts off in a tunnel, and then moves to an elevator, which stops off at each floor, an attendant describes how 'this is the community' for something or other, more people step into the film every few minutes and it kind of has this whizzing camera work that tries to represent its characters as strange and offbeat. It feels very 90s, rather than a product of 2004, it has Jean-Pierre Jeunet-inspired green and yellow cinematography and the sensibility of an MTV music video, it's cyberpunk and trashy and I loved all that about it. I was mesmerized by it but also quite bored, the more it drags scenes out though the more I was lured in by its charms. It's initially hard to engage with because it doesn't care to lead you in, establishing its protagonist. Something happens and it's not hard to know what, but I was thinking it might just go through every floor of whatever place this is, introducing as many weird characters as it could imagine, building the world as it does, and that I'd be fine with that.

I loved its direction and style, can't overstate that enough.

 

7/10

 

The Nice Guys

Really liked it, kind of wish I didn't watch the trailer last December, I was waiting for so long for a certain moment to happen I was wondering if it had been cut. I was waiting and waiting, actually. I loved the dialogue and chemistry between Gosling and Crowe, how Crowe's violent treatment of Gosling's character (i don't recall any name from this film except Amelia..) and subsequent pleading for help leads to Gosling being short and snappy with Crowe for the duration of the film.

 

Ryan Gosling is such a fantastic actor. His physical comedy is so well timed and performed, the way he screams in a high pitched squeal is really funny, and shows a kind comic range; searching for ways to use his voice to be funnier. Crowe doesn't bring nearly as much in comparison, he's pretty muted really and allows the hysteria of others to bring the humour.

 

And I'm not sure how they do it but only Ryan Gosling and Tom Hardy [for me] have this ability to elevate a scene with the way they approach it, the way they deliver lines, their timing, their movement. There are other great actors but there's always that sense they're going through the motions, as easy as they find acting, doing their thing as they always do. Gosling and Hardy make any film they're in so much more watchable, they inject their performances with what seems like improvisation and an unpredictability, each scene they're in feels like their first take of their first film, ie, their style and approach is always fresh. They don't settle into the landscape of the film, they stand out, just give off a different energy.

Read/heard some criticisms about the casting not suiting the characters or the film, like if Robert Downey Jr had been in the Gosling role it would have worked more because he can pull of self loathing better, but it's not like Gosling can't do it either. I find Downey Jr insufferable and obnoxious and it wouldn't allow this film to be different to Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. Gosling and Crowe are this film to me. I'd love a sequel, and I'll try to avoid the trailer next time.

 

8/10

 

Now You See Me 2

Annoying nonsense, and I liked the first one. But enjoyable enough, and nearly worth an extra star for an amazingly audacious scene involving the group attempting to hide a single card while being frisked. They're flicking it from their palm to the back of their hand, sliding it down their jacket, throwing it across the room while another of them is somehow able to catch it, all the while not one of the 8 or so guards and suspicious boss spot anything. It uses its stupidity to its advantage, it's best not taking any of it seriously, because as soon as you do, it all gets flipped around anyway. There's about a dozen twists and reversals in this film, it's not worth becoming too engaged with the reality you're being sold because its all a ruse, it uses the tricks of magic to do anything implausible that it likes without making any sense. You'll have a meltdown trying to unravel this film. I did find it witty in places, Woody Harrelson's character has a mischievous twin who turns up with poodle hair. It sets that tone, we're going to do this because it's fun.

 

5/10

 

Money Monster

I thought Josie Foster's previous film The Beaver was offensively awful, my hate towards it extending to those who even just tolerated and found it okay, and whose judgement I'll always call onto question if they rated it the same as more credible film/anything I patently have affection for. It took an unusual idea and went sentimental rather than weird, which doesn't sound so offensive when put like that, but it was, I'll just need to endure it again to remind myself of it to properly do its terribleness justice, the banality of its execution jaw dropping at the time.

 

Money Monster is the kind of thriller I like, but it needed to do a lot more for the doubts surrounding 'this is the director who put her name to The Beaver' to subside. Phonebooth for instance I thought was fantastically directed, that the director also gave the world Batman & Robin didn't matter when he made such simple scenes as a man clinging on to a public pay phone like his life depended on it with mounting pressure outside for him to give way, a prostitue, her pimp being well cast and directed, the scenes convincing, the threat real.

 

I enjoyed Money Monster but I think it shows the limitations of actors who sometimes direct. They copy the set modern thriller style and it's fun but not particularly tense, a lack of an individual boldness that sets their film apart from the average. Phonebooth didn't end well, and a great director might not have been able to make something great out of Money Monster's story, unless they were able to bring it up a level. Foster has gone for something light and lean. It's maybe better than but essentially on par tonally with stuff like Man on a Ledge and Now You See Me.

 

There's plenty of articles and interviews in the Guardian suggesting than there's a lack of actors emerging from working class backgrounds as there were in the 70s and 80s, theyre unable to finance their passion enough to finally make it, those who do generally having connections and rich parents. The middle class/posh British actors still give their all in every role, and some like Juno Temple are always quirky and watchable, her timing and delivery can light up an ordinary scene and a flagging film. Rebecca Hall too is always great, but there's something missing that no amount of extreme concentration and intense delivery can provide. She says lines like she means them, but in Money Monster Jack O'Connell says lines like he's lived them. It's so jarring in the best possible way to see him crowbar his way into a film of such big Hollywood stars and deliver reality like his character is meant to, it's perfect casting. George Clooney can deliver lines the right way, as can Julia Roberts, with intent, dedication, warmth, subtley, but never with the natural convincing rage as Jack O'Connell's character. It is intended for his character to represent harsh reality and Clooney's and Roberts' to represent the privileged and out of touch, but as a whole it contributes to films increasing unreality when every film can feel like such an expensive pristine production.

 

I don't know what Jack O'Connell's background is but tonally he offers something different from a lot of other young male (or female) actors working today. Starred Up made me an immediate fan, how difficult it would be for a posh actor to pull that off. It felt in the same vein as the young performances of Tim Roth and Ray Winstone in their early breakthrough roles dealing with troubled teenagers, anger bumbling inside them waiting to spill over into the scenes.

Vague potentialy spoilery stuff about the story..

 

Don't know what else to say about the film really, it's obvious where the plot is leading, and it gives clues as to what it's all about and is more complex than pure villainry, but I can't say I was gripped, I didn't care whether Clooney lived or died, and didn't think for one second Kyle would detonate the bomb, but then it was clear it wasn't about that, not for the film, not for Kyle. The film ends up being taken away from him, as the host and director take control, with him looking crestfallen in the background, interjecting frequently to yell loudly and angrily that they're dodging the issue again of what actually happened to his money. At points its like he's barely listening to what anyone is saying, but if they veer into bullshittery territory it sets him off again. In the end there's no message, the down trodden suffer, the elite distract, the middle/upper class are sad for a few minutes but carry on as normal, not as deeply affected by the entire life-changing event as their tears would suggest.

 

6/10

 

Love Actually

I've never got to the end of this film, watching on tv at the moment with one hour five minutes to go I'm classifying it as watched. I like the way its structured, switching to an never-ending number of recognizable actors doing things so that at no point does it allow you to make sense of the bludgeoning saccharine blandness and give any indication when it might finally end (is it Christmas yet?). January Jones has just turned up and now Kim from 24 must have entered the same shack to escape the cougar she's been running away from. Unusual for this film I don't recognize the third girl.

 

That scene aside, it's so unbearable, bit of a breather now that the adverts have come on. It looks like shit although everyone glows. It's going to take weeks of intense Autechre listening to cleanse my soul of the tepid piss that this film is aurally violating my brain with.

 

1/10

 

Green Room

-------------SPOILERS---------------

I was looking forward to this having read its premise, it seemed so different as well as exciting, exactly the type of film that wouldn't fail to entertain me. That it didn't i think comes down to me not clicking with the way this director tells a story, I didn't like Blue Ruin either past the promising setup. I thought that ultimately he wanted to get to certain violent moments and forced the characters to do stupid things in order to achieve it, i didn't believe in the motivations or actions. But i think that film has more reason to contrive because it's about revenge, whereas this film is about survival and yet at some point it is like you're just watching a revenge thriller. I watch more Korean revenge thrillers than anything else and at the core of them is the theme of betrayal, which i find engaging and allows the actors potential to really express themselves, which can be overwhelming at times.

 

I think this film begins incoherently, but it's about a young band so the messy storytelling is maybe fitting. I had an idea in my head of how it'd play out, how neo nazis would be portrayed, but apart from when the young band are on stage singing a track to rile up the crowd the villains in the film aren't distinctive from any other type of villain. I wanted to feel more of that threat of being in an environment of those kind of hate-filled people, such as in This Is England, or The Believer. Neo nazis are better portrayed in Hanna, and in terms of a prestigious actor given a scary big boss role, I watched Sexy Beast before this for the first time, both Ben Kingsley and Ian McShane are genuinely terrifying in distinct ways as people you wouldn't even want them to ask you a question for fear of them insinuating you're lieing when you give your answer. I don't think Patrick Stewart has any such stand out scenes of intimidation, threat, memorable lines of dialogue, vivid imagery.

 

There is no film here that can play out if you pick apart things that could have been avoided to prevent the amount of bloodshed that ensues, but it didn't stop me from thinking of them, it was never clear why all this had to happen to save Werm, and then you realise it was really to make sure the heroin bunker stays hidden, which was less of a revelation and made me just think; why not move the murder to elsewhere and give up Werm? If they're scared of the scene being thoroughly investigated which risks the bunker being discovered. It doesn't make sense. Neither does allowing Daniel to go in there, even though they sort of know that he was secretly seeing the murdered girl and when he sees her lying dead on the floor is likely to switch sides. It never made sense why the big man guarding the band inside the room is asked to give his gun over to a bunch of increasingly scared punk kids, nor when they're given the gun minutes later they're persuaded to give it over to the voice of the bar owner outside the room. Yeah they apparently buy the reason of 'police are coming, hand over unregistered gun', but it seemed suicidal on their part.

 

I enjoy Korean and Japanese thrillers which can be described as nihilistic and violent, but for me they're never nasty with it, it's not the number of people being sliced by a sword, or the amount of blood that matters, it's the shots of deep gashes, bones being snapped that a director chooses to relish in a gratuitous way where it becomes unpleasant for me, and I thought this film crossed that line. Dogs ripping apart at the necks of key characters felt like something from an uncompromising British horror film. The film didn't ratchet up the tension, didn't allow me to get to know each member of the band more and grow to care about them being against such insurmountable odds while being confided to this space, which would be key to how engaged I become. There's no escapes, chases, no desperate attempts at hiding.

I don't think there are strong characters, or strong moments, i think people respond to the tone of the film being more bleak than maybe an average director would bring to it but there isn't much quality there at the script/ideas stage to make it standout.

 

4/10

 

God of Egypt

This film is silly and if it didn't deliver on its silliness in a way that is fun then it'd be bad. It deciding to be silly doesn't make it automatically bad if that is the intention. The impression I get from critics is that they don't realise this. For me, the worst thing a film can be is boring. I've enjoyed plenty of so-called outright awful films because I don't go into them with expectations, i take whatever i can from them. I don't mind things that are tacky, and naff, i prefer creative amateurism to dour professionalism, but the key is the tone. I didn't find this so witty I laughed, but I'll take an attempt at back-chatting type dialogue over po faced characters. It is a series of locations and ideas and characters and mostly tame jokes, but there is real relish on the director to embrace it rather than be embarrassed by it. There's many who adore Speed Racer and Jupiter Ascending for the same reasons. I actually found this more lighter and more cohesive even if it could be edited down.

 

The CGI is not great in places, and the fight scenes don't flow too well, with the camera swooshing around certain attacks jarringly. This film is more of a b movie despite its budget because it doesn't even try to convince you of its seriousness. I grew up with 90s videogames like Earthworm Jim, cartoons like He-Man, films like Commando. I'd like a return to fantasy like Krull which has a magic and mystery to it, and a dirty real quality to it with sets, puppets, prosthetics, but we never will. This kind of high energy style doesn't make me lament the 80s childrens films because it isn't directly comparable really. This is sleek shininess in the same vein as The Immortals which I also liked for some of its visual ideas. A film isn't stupid if it doesn't try to be smart, it is stupid if it tries to be smart and fails.

 

I watched this after Midnight Special and just wondered about the difference between reactions between the two films, somehow one is more sillier than other. One has light beaming out of the eyes of an otherworldly kid and the idea of something else hanging above Earth, the other has gods who transform into metal birds and a giant space worm that on a nightly basis hassles the God of creation stationed on a boat in space into a battle.

 

Midnight Special taps into people's nostalgia for Close Encounters and E.T. as Super 8 tried but like that film I think it fails. It shies away from going all out with ideas lest it jeopardize how serious you might take it. Repetition is used to lengthen it, it's very predictable from the beginning how it will end, the style and tone is set, there are no curve balls, nothing new of interest throughout its duration. I suppose one tries to be emotionally engaging and the other aims lower, and your reaction depends by how invested you are by the essence of the idea.

 

With Gods of Egypt there is no core emotional idea, obviously, like there isn't in most videogames where you jump on enemies heads to kill them, but i prefer it's much more entertaining, varied, full-on approach to film making and I realise it is a deliberate approach, not some kind of failure. Obviously people might just think it's attempt at being fun and silly and entertaining falls flat because they think it is none of those things, and it is instead boring and badly shot. I don't think it is but it should be rated on that level, in terms of what it is trying to be. Jon Carter of Mars suffered the same response, i listen to Mark Kermode or used to so just noticed the lack of consistency in ripping apart certain films but not others. Like this and Jon Carter but not, say Skyfall, and Spectre. Clear British bias but also overlooking a film's severe plot holes and terrible logic because it presents itself in a more serious way so maybe you don't look that hard.

 

Jon Carter is nor more illogical than Gods of Egypt really. It's quite odd, leaps made in the screenplay to make sense of why and how and what is happening but never really indulging in it to a degree where it stops dead all the momentum of the overall story and becomes tedious. I just go along with whatever, I can find a hundred things in life, society, politics that makes no sense whatsoever, a film such as this can't offend me.

I didn't like it that much to write all that, but, yeah.

 

6/10

 

Grimsby

I thought this was embarrassingly bad, basically coming up with a series of the most gross-out, repulsive scenarios and then writing backwards to try to engineer a way to make them happen which is in no way realistic or convincing. Its not the kind of comedy that makes me laugh, more like a car crash to witness what I can't quite believe people considered funny. It seems like its makers think a comedy movie needs to up the ante from a regular TV comedy and one way of doing that is with one-off ludicrous scenes. I mostly like dry, witty, sarcastic, understated comedy. Throw away lines not intended to be hilarious make me laugh most due to them seemingly just slipped in there innocuously.

 

I never thought I'd watch something so soon after being violated by Dirty Grandpa that makes that film seem less alone in its repulsiveness .

 

1/10

 

Midnight Special

I seem to be in the minority with this, I thought it was pretty bad. It might have echoes of Close Encounters to those who gelled with it, but for me it was like a mash up of The Knowing and Tomorrowland.

 

For a film where so many elements have been explored in other films it's so light on plot details to make it interesting, it lacks any mystery because it spells out how the boy is special early on, i felt no connection between Michael Shannon's character and the boy, and perhaps I would have if the boy wasn't so zoned out all the time and Shannon's mate didn't tag along for no reason whatsoever. I don't like films with extended climaxes that drag the suspense out, and this film feels like one big climax that doesn't deliver. I think it takes itself more seriously than any film I've ever seen. Lots and lots of scenes of characters staring into the distance, whispering about how serious this all is. I didn't believe any of it, nor care for any of it.

 

I am kind of unsure what people like about it, i think it's all style and no substance, which would usually be enough for me if it was at least fun and varied rather than drawn out and boring. The Knowing at least had an epic plane crash and visually epic surreal scenes of wildlife escaping forest fires, it was unsettling the ways numbers could be linked to natural disasters goes back decades. And when aliens are introduced it's pretty mysterious and exciting because it never suggested it. Tomorrowland too has some good ideas that it can't wrestle into a cohesive whole, but it has fun too.

 

I tried to watch this for the pure escapism of it, but it just made me fall asleep more than once.

 

3/10

 

Ghostbusters

I didn't care for this at all. Maybe I wasn't in the mood, maybe I'll never find the perfect time to watch a film about colourful ghosts. I guess I just don't even understand their threat. They're ghosts, so what? What's the issue? I have no nostalgic connection with the original, I vaguely remember bits of it, but Hollywood is scraping the barrel to the point where certain films just can't be remade, at all. It will never work. Maybe the only ones who can judge are children oblivious to the original. I liked Bridesmaids, and Spy, but here found the same actors simply annoying. It didn't work for me here like it did there. I think because the four don't bounce off each other, they have no rapport, they're too alike, there's no friction. The only time the film aproaches actual comedy is with Chris Hemsworth's character and how he interacts with them. His hipsterish stupidity finds new ways to infuriate them. His jokes were the only ones that weren't signposted.

 

Paul Feig is a terrible film director, the locations he chooses to shoot in, his set design, the over lit cinematography, the framing, he has a bland style that is more television than cinema. Feig's writing and directing are of the level of a sketch show or a comedy skit for a charity fundraising night.

 

The original Ghostbusters is one of the grimiest, natural looking films, which helps the believability when depicting ghosts. It is of its time, but remade it's just like any other modern action cgi blockbuster set in New York, most notably the recent Pixels.

 

4/10

 

Where To Invade Next?

I loved this, I've wanted to see a film like this for a while now, Moore's jaw dropping disbelief at the sheer difference between the compassion shown in any country he visits and the way it works back in USA was consistently funny. I did know about a few of the more surprising details beforehand which maybe lessened the surprise, but there's a few in there I could never have saw coming, and his access is fantastic, not just the Norway island prison that allows its prisoners some responsibility and dignity but also their maximum security prison which is almost just as unimaginable. The cuts back to the USA's treatment of its prisoners is startling. It is blunt, Moore admits to picking 'the flowers, not the weeds'. I have no problem with that, as like he says, 'it's not about their country, it's about America'. It's for Americans, i don't mind his slow sarcastic deliver, which I took as a means to poke fun at the way the right wing media of America treats the word socialism as something laughably evil. I think the film has to be take in that context, of a media that will never cover the possibility for progressive change. It is not just naive idealism, it is not simplifying, it is not ignoring all the other problems a country might have. It is explicitly pointing out that it is about priorities, and that it is possible, economically. Americans work more hours but aren't as productive, children do more homework but aren't as well educated.

 

There's an interview with a father of a teenager murdered by Anders Breivik who they both agree is 'scum', but a better description would be utterly mentally deranged, warped, ill, but the father insists he does not want Breivik dead, does not want revenge. I thought at that point the film might touch on the story of the five year old girl killed in Norway by two 6 year old boys whose act was taken as a collective failing of the community as a whole, rather than as a sign of their evil. The murder happened a year after James Bulger's and while there are differences in that in Norway the 3 kids were playing together, and in the UK the two older kids kidnapped a much younger child and led him away from his mother, it's that they chose to forgive than continue to dredge up the story every few years in order to prey on people's anger and fears that is the real difference.

 

Even now UKIP's deputy leader on Question Time 'makes no apologies' for wanting to bring back the death penalty for child murderers, while in Portugal police officers who are so passionate about the issue they wanted to speak directly to America in saying simply that with the death penalty you can't have human dignity and that is the most important thing.

 

Watching the Norway section it's like they try to flood criminals with so much kindness, respect, humanity that it is like entering a parallel universe. The film does feel like it's presenting some kind of utopia, but it's just nice to see common sense, progression, forgiveness even if it doesn't paint a full picture.

I think the film is timely given that Moore said the reason he didn't visit/invade the UK was because he felt there was nothing to learn from us, timely given that by all accounts if we leave the European Union we'll descend further into imitating America.

 

Moore goes to Italy, France, Germany, and then skips UK to instead go to Slovenia to greater understand their free education system, he talks to those at the bottom, students, those in the middle, teachers, those at the top, CEO's and prime ministers. His scruffiness, wearing the clothes fit for a hovercraft ride on swamp works as appearing like a man from another world, insisting on planting his big American flag everywhere he steals an idea adding to his outback weirdness, I'd like to think he brought half a dozen of them with him.

 

10/10

 

Captain America: Civil War

I thought this was excruciatingly boring, Winter Solider for me was the point of almost no return for super hero films, and I can't decide if I hated this more or less, certainly if you interchanged scenes between the two I wouldn't be able to tell which scene is from which film. While lighter in tone i found it just as po-faced as the Dark Knight Rises.

 

Deadpool, while far from perfect, was like an injection the genre needed for me to get through one without being numbed by it. It had a Family Guy-like attitude to jokes, throwing everything at you with little regard for taste, it felt like a grimey gangster B movie, with crap special effects.

 

Winter Soldier and this doesn't make sense to me, neither action nor plot, the experimented on soldier committing acts of terrorism wearing some mechanized suit, engaging in hand to hand combat with the super heros out to stop him/them/whoever. That's not a scenario that excites, it's more slick and well put together than something like the Dare Devil film, so not out right bad in that regard, but in terms of it all washing over me with its sheer pointlessness it's pretty bad.

 

And that Winter Solider is so polarizing, some fans of it might be surprised some found it tedious, at least shows not everyone thinks the same way, that simply extracting superheros from their own world and planting them into this doesn't necessarily work. Not everyone gives a shit about seeing Iron Man square up to Ant Man.

We had one Deadpool film, and people already are wary of the idea of too many copy cat superhero send ups running the idea into the ground and ruining the so called purity of Deadpool, as though it went far enough, or was completely free from the blockbuster template. But we've got two Captain America's that are essentially the same which include maybe 58 scenes of the superheros stood around glumly moralizing about how every time they have a scrap they blow a building up and civilians die. But not at the airport where they have their longest fight yet, an abandoned airport presumably.

 

I much prefer the ludicrous nihilism of Deadpool to this heavy handed dour approach. Nothing connected, while fans are seemingly more eager than ever to see this fighters megamix I became past it 8 films ago. Doesn't help that it's a long long film, the switching from fighting to Serious Taking seeming never ending, my mouth was dry, i nearly choked on a sweet, i just wanted it to end by the airport fight, but knew with no baddy involved it was unlikely.

 

2/10

 

Room

Somehow I didn't know what the circumstances were to the enclosed space setup of this film even while I was way into watching it, a comment I'd heard about the film threw me off a little bit. I gather everyone knows, anyone who has watched the most revealing trailer of all time for this film will know too much, anyone who has read the book will know ultimately what the film is all about; a mother and son relationship more than anything else.

 

Like Beasts of the Southern Wild I don't get on with children talking whimsically stupid-cute in a false manner, so it was really the tension derided from not knowing why and how it plays out that I found most compelling. When listening to the writer and director talk about the film, they gave the impression that the only way they thought people would see the film is if the marketing focused on the mother and son relationship because the enclosed space might be too hard to take. But the claustrophobia of the situation while initially uncomfortable is ultimately more effective than the cloying sentimentality.

 

I resent that a film such as this has to be sanitized in order to be palpable, that there's little conviction in wanting to put an audience through something grim when the inevitable release would make it more worthwhile. I think a film is better to earn it, it'd be more satisfying to have the nightmare prolonged for longer, it loses its power the more it panders to the relationship over the captivating struggle of the situation. I found the kid obnoxious, I didn't connect to him at all really, the situations and direction made me care more than anything he was doing.

 

6/10

 

Legend

Tom Hardy is my favourite actor, he's so enjoyable to watch in this that it matters little that it's a typically shiny biopic that fails to go into any detail at all about what their gangstering was all about. It's deliberate, LEGEND, scenes play out not like they're happening for the very first time in front of your eyes as you witness something unflinching and grim, but as the 100th retelling of the version of events that romanticizes them. As Ronnie Tom Hardy looks like too much make up has been applied and talks like he's not in the same room as everybody else, as Reggie Tom Hardy is assured and real. Watching him as Ronnie insult or attack somebody for no reason and then him as Reggie completely lose it, more than once, screaming at his twin/himself was a lot of fun.

 

In small roles or supporting roles, Hardy usually elevates a film with his presence alone. I'm not exaggerating, I caught a bit of Layer Cake the other week and saw Hardy just stood in the background of a room doing nothing, he does standing around with an assuredness better than anyone else he shares the screen with. Every other actor might be trying too hard and coming across a bit naff.

 

Struggling to get through Rock N Rolla and he turns up and within about 20 seconds gives a proper sense of a person who lives that moment he has on screen like it's real. And it's a completely jarring, farcical and terribly written part of a terrible film, but he captures it so well it's a real sudden jolt of actual quality. In Lawless, again, so unexpected, so unexplainable how some mumbling can be so effective, but contrasted against Shia's relentlessly highly strung pissed off at the world act it's more about the timing of his delivery i think, the pauses, he asserts himself on the screen.

 

The one role I didn't like him in was The Revenant, I think because he talks too much and too fast, and that doesn't suit him. In The Drop, too, that film is about as underwritten as a film can be, but his performance makes it what it is, the looks he gives in certain moments that suggest a kind of mischievousness, there's a warmth and likability to him that other currently great male actors lack.

 

And this film shows two sides to his acting, because as Ronnie he hams it up terribly, he's a cartoon comedy character, but as Reggie he treats it more seriously. And that last scene, wow.

 

6/10

 

The Big Short

So their conscience said it was wrong, but their instinct was to exploit it rather than draw attention to the inevitable crisis that would ensue. As characters you follow as they go down this rabbit hole of unending corruption, which at every point their sheer disbelief and disgust is clear to see, they still intend too capitalize on a failing system for their own end. Mark Kermode described it as a black comedy, but I didn't get that sense from it. It's more confused and conflicted, and while I got something out of the film, it was hard to really engage with these loathsome people that it mattered little they at least had a conscience. Is that being dense? Was that the point?

 

6/10

 

Victoria

Watched on the basis of David Chen's praise on the /filmcast, it's set in the early hours of a German city over a period of 2 hours 20 minutes, beginning with a Spanish girl dancing in a night club, and playing out in real time in one long take. She leaves the club and starts talking to 4 guys fooling around on a car they try to claim is their own. It can be pretty mesmerizing and even magical in the ways it manages to bridge the gaps in between the dialogue, the way the camera follows as two of the characters ride a bicycle, i was less being made aware the camera operator would have to catch them up and more feeling the sense that these characters exist in this world and are going to move through it and you're just following them.

 

But the more I watched the more I was made aware of it and its limitations, especially in terms of who the camera follows, and with it being over 2 hours and given how in awe David Chen seemed to be at some of it, my attention became less on the characters and more on the expectation and excitement at what it'd be able to do, which I don't think it quite lives up to.

 

I really wish I loved this film because those early parts are so convincingly real but i think it could have taken more care in how it developed, it began to feel less like something that feels realistic and instead more acted in terms of the situations. The film is ambitious in moving from place to place, and i don't think the one take is a gimmick or should be considered a gimmick, i think that is a tedious criticism leveled at the film by critics who are so quick to point out 'without the stunt, there's not much of a movie'. I'd love more filmmakers to be bold in their approach to telling a story, and long takes are a brilliant way to break the pattern you expect. With Victoria it's more the cumulative effect of it sustaining its run and the more I got into the film the more it needed to do for it to impress, and for that it's less effective than a film like Children of Men subtly sneaking in a long take half way through the film where characters die and dangerous stunts happen in front of your eyes and the way it doesn't draw attention to it made it so engrossing for me.

 

The action set piece at the end gets more attention but i found the middle sequence more effective i think because i was less aware of it occurring, it comes out of nowhere. I'm trying to think of others now..the long tracking shot of Fassbender running in Shame is another favourite. And the long take in True Detective was unbelievable in its unexpectedness and escalation, and also felt very GTA.

Best going into this film knowing no more.

 

6/10

 

Star Wars: The Force Awakens

I think this avoids being bad more than it tries to be great. My enjoyment was affected by having to see it in 3-d, which I don't like because you can't take in the whole scene, and then there's the dull colours. I rest the glasses on my head as they slowly slip down, and finally can see the whole screen.

 

The most surprising thing about this was probably how restrained Abrams is, I despised his Star Trek for how nauseating and shiny it was, it seemed like he directed without getting to the essence, it was all surface prettiness. Abrams seems more keen to honour Star Wars than he was Star Trek, mostly because Star Wars is his favourite, and some felt Star Trek needed to be energized and turned more Star Wars-y to suit a modern audience, whereas Star Wars doesn't really need it.

Star Wars was never a childhood film for me, I knew of it but never watched it until catching bits on tv. I am always in awe of the design and the scope of its world. It's so rich with potential, it's just..very little in this was all that exciting or seemed to delve into the wider world. The ..space pirates aboard Solo's freighter was like something out of Red Dwarf but still I'd have preferred more of that, inferences of past misdeeds, more 'how are they going to get out of this' scenarios.

 

The film didn't drag at all, and I wish it was longer and was actually packed with one set piece after another as it was described before I saw it but which doesn't seem to fit the film I watched. It seems like modern blockbusters can't create characters as well as they used to, and this film tries to address that, a return to proper light sabre fights that are a bit messy and tough and not the sleek martial artist duels of the prequels.

 

But without the aid of copious amounts of cgi the action fails to be memorable or noteworthy, not that the set pieces in, say Crystal Skull are anything but noteworthy for all the wrong reasons. Just because this film is more coherent and focusses on vibrant characters rather than dull politics like Phantom Menace doesn't necessarily mean for me it's better, because I'd rather a film tried and failed than not try at all. I take the good stuff and forget the rest. i think the pod race from Phantom Menace is better than anything in this film.

 

I suppose everyone keeps saying the sequels and spin offs will be more interesting, but I don't know if they will allowed to be. Despite how just okay I think this is, I won't get bored of a Star Wars film every year if they get the right balance between characters and cgi as they do here. (Snoke aside)

 

I just hope they discard the story, and focus on very specific situations that are rooted in a reality and that feel like they grow naturally as opposed to always being about just getting one to character to another location, so he can do such a thing, and then go elsewhere, and on and on, because it's their destiny.

 

5/10

 

The Client [Korean film]

The setup - man returns home to his flat to find police investigating a blood soaked bed and he is the prime suspect in the murder of his girlfriend, the only thing is...there is no body - is compelling enough for me that the film didn't need to be particularly well directed in order for me to get a lot out of it.

 

It feels more like watching 3 episodes of a very good tv show than a film, it's not cinematic or dramatic or moody, it lacks visual flair. While Oldboy represents the absolute peak of creativity in the thriller genre to come out of Korea, there is largely a homogeneity to the film making in these films that have so much going for them they ought to try to be more outstanding. The Client is an example of a director giving themselves entirely over to the writing, instead of using it as a springboard for their own visual ideas relating to the material.

 

It is a court room drama for parts of it, so there is a limit to how creative it can be anyway. It kept me guessing until the very end as to whether the boyfriend is guilty or not. The film asks questions about allowing how you perceive someone's behaviour in extreme circumstances to affect your judgement of them - the boyfriend is considered too restrained and cold. It's also interesting, regardless of the truth, if whether a man can be found guilty of homicide if no body is discovered. The film is smart and deceptive at the right points to leave you considering all the possible circumstances.

 

The acting is terrific, the defender is intelligent and refreshingly laid back in his manner, this too feels like a tv show approach, he has no demons, he's not taking the case to prove anything, you get the impression he could walk away with ease, so it's free from cliche in that regard. The actor who plays the accused boyfriend is the stand out performer, he's very convincing as a man who has lost his whole world. I find Korean and Japanese films really hit the mark when it comes to capturing a genuine kind of melancholic emptiness that I really respond to.

 

These genre films can be completely far fetched action thrillers and then hook me with a turn towards emotional drama, purely because of the performances and what they're giving, how much they seem to mean it. I feel inclined to engage more with a film when the actors are giving so much. The films can be slight twists on familiar subject matter and yet they still do it with such sincerity and passion, as though it's the first film to explore themes of betrayal and not the hundredth.

 

8/10

 

Elephant

(possible spoilers towards the end)

This felt like a wasted opportunity to me, I loved the direction, the over the shoulder long takes of characters walking through the mostly empty school, it's really effective in creating an uneasy vibe and tone. I was very on board with its odd way of shooting everyday situations and elevating them.

 

Early on I did wonder what approach it would take and thought it might concentrate on a group of teenagers who started their day like any other day, and that the killers would be always in the background, not given any attention. It would move the attention away from the killers in a way psychologist experts say the media should neglect to show the face and mention the name of any killer who commits these kind of notorious killings. This would at least allow the audience to connect with the teenagers and feel an increasing sense of anxiety at the inevitable massacre that is about to ensue and whether they're among those who were killed. Or perhaps the film decides to end before the moment the shooting begins and the audience is left on a cliffhanger of sorts, whereby you're dreading but anticipating carnage and like Funny Games calls into question your own appetite for violence. The issue is that this film isn't engaging enough from a character/dialogue perspective so I just wanted to see something, anything happen that might engage me. The film doesn't move beyond being ambient, the characters are not developed, it's not even trying to make you engage with them, it only works on an artistic, pure level. The film presents different teenagers whose name appear on screen, as though to say: this was their day, but you don't actually learn anything more about them other than their name.

 

When the film chooses to move on to the actual killers, i didn't think they were handled with any nuance, they're cartoonishly drawn, which given that it's based on real people it doesn't live up to the responsibility required. For all the sense of realism in how the normal teenagers are presented with their awkward banal mumbling improvised dialogue, when it's applied to the killers it feels clumsy and flippant even. It undermines the level of nihilistic angst the two killers obviously felt, and it betrays the opportunity to delve any deeper. It's more necessary to ask what drove them to suicide than to murder, for the massacre is just the way they chose to commit suicide, and the film can't even get that right; both killers took their own lives, one after the other. It initially seems flimsy and then just appears deliberately absurd. I very much doubt they just one day, stripped naked, jumped in a shower together, said to each other; 'gee, we're going to die today, aren't we? I've never kissed anyone, have you? Lets kiss.'

 

I watched Bowling for Colombine afterwards, and Matt Stone said for me the most perceptive thing about the area, the school, from the position of someone who had gone through that process and who knew how it felt, as he said, to have it drummed into you that if you fail at school you're a loser and a loser forever, whereas as he said the opposite is true, that's just when you escape and begin your life if you want to, however you want to. And it's that the two killers couldn't see beyond school that is the tragedy, couldn't see beyond the bullying, their constant need to reassert their dominance, masculinity and stature, that they couldn't let it go, think of their future, and had to swear by their revenge fantasy. It's beyond sad to end your life because of others, it's like, they got off so much on the impact they'd make while ignoring the consequence would be ending their lives, because it mattered more to feel empowered for a limited time than to live another day in their life.

I can't imagine what it takes to get to that point of no return, but the decision to die seems like it came before the decision to kill, it's like it was liberating for them, because for once there are no consequences for their actions if there isn't going to be a tomorrow. No one knows what goes through the minds of kids who commit to these all or nothing killings, but the film chooses to reduce their intelligence, they're no smarter than Beavis and Butt-Head, they're not far removed from going huh huh cool at everything they come across.

 

The film does elude to, via the dialogue of one of the killers, to the principal ignoring the teenager's pleas for help from the bullying they faced, but it feels too slight, it's just thrown out there weakly. And I don't think enough is implied about how in a situation like this there is a disconnect between how the bullied sees things and how others do, and I think these issues escalate when the problems of others are brushed off and trivialized, because what is a nothing issue to you might be the end of the world for someone else. The other pupils and teachers just can't comprehend why any individual would commit an act like this, the various warning signs (which are not included in this film, such as the crazed essays written for school assignments) were not treated with the seriousness they should have been. As Marilyn Manson said in Bowling For Columbine, asked what he would say to the two killers if he had the chance, he said he wouldn't tell them anything, he would listen, as that was something no one had obviously done.

 

I'm not sure what Gus Van Sant was trying to express, the lasting impression is him wanting to pick at the absurdity of these kind of massacres, there is a scene where a newly introduced teenager simply wanders the school after the shooting begins, towards the gunfire rather than away from it like everyone else escaping through the windows to reach the outside. His life seems to mean nothing to him. His indifference to the situation reminded me of a story of another shooting committed by a teenager who didn't end his murder by suicide, he just sat on the road outside the school's grounds and was talked to by an officer., who asked what he had done and the teenager described what happened, the officer asked why, and he said he didn't know, like; why not? The families of the murdered loved ones said he was evil, he turned up to sentencing smirking, slouched, unbothered, said he was glad he caused them so much pain, was looking forward to jail. It sounded like being in a terrifying state of existential depression, where nothing moves you and it's so unnerving and upsetting you do something extreme just because. I think it's in the public's interest to be exposed to the inner workings of serial killers rather than just be bludgeoned by the sensationalism that occurs in the media, if the aim is to increase peoples open mindedness rather than prey on their emotions.

There's a chilling coldness and detachment from the reality of the situation in Elephant, none of the urgency and panic and screaming as you would expect, on one hand the visual direction -extreme close ups, long takes- allows it to feel real, yet the actions of some characters does not. The film's directional style decides how everything unfolds and it just continues as it began, from ordinary day to extreme situation, the tone stays the same. I've just remembered..there is a scene where one of the killers plays the piano while the other plays a fictional FPS game, where he inevitably shoots digital people, and it's hard not to respond to that kind of scene cynically, hard to take Van Sant seriously, like; he can't possibly be making that link so bluntly with a straight face. Both killers in real life committed suicide, one after the other, and it'd be fascinating to wonder how they felt before that moment, because they're not the first to do this, but some are mentally ill or just have a breakdown one day, whereas theirs was planned and pre meditated, and being two of them, who lead and who followed, and how does that friendship even play out? The film doesn't explore that, instead preferring to be more theatrical, and in certain moments confusing and illogical.

 

5/10

 

Ronaldo

The best moments in this Ronaldo film are the ones that feature Lionel Messi, which is the last thing Ronaldo would want anyone to take away from his film. Messi at the World Cup scoring wonder goals, Messi at the Ballon d'Or, just stood over on the other side of the room, which causes Ronaldo's son to freeze in awe at the impossibility that he could be in such close proximity of the greatest player who ever lived. I was slightly in awe too, Messi remains a mystery and having been bored senseless for most of the film's duration for him to just appear made me sit up and widen my eyes.

 

Or maybe young Christiano was just naturally shy... but it's amusing to think that he would only see his dad as just his dad and not as a goal scoring Galáctico and reserves his true amazement for that other player who he only ever sees on telly, and probably secretly shares dribbling clips with his friends at school. Not like that is a humbling situation for Ronaldo, who probably views being humbled as a sign of weakness that must be attacked.

 

In fact, given that it's his film it's a little surprising that he allowed any footage of Lionel Messi to appear in it and possibly upstage him. Ronado is mature enough now to say that he views Messi as a human being rather than an enemy (or rival), but that he needs to say it probably tells you that his obsession to be the greatest on Earth and have it made official by the Ballon d'Or is so unusual that he probably has strong feelings against anyone who will prevent him from achieving it. It has been to the detriment of his game too, because to be that prolific you have to sacrifice creativity, surprise, beauty, elegance, all the things that keep the game of football so compelling to watch, the sheer range of goals that can be scored, the sheer range of incidences and situations that can arise in a match.

 

You can watch a run of the mill game like any other, and then out of nowhere a moment of improvisational genius hits a player who is about to receive the ball, he's calculated all the space that surrounds him and the players who inhabit that space, and he knows that his first touch will move the ball into a space that will allow for a shot to be taken, despite the improbable distance to goal. They execute the move with such clarity of purpose, such out of the blue brilliance, they're worth more than a 100 tap ins.

 

The willingness from anyone to reduce the game to purely goal to game ratio stats undermines what's great about football. At the same time people really admire Ronaldo's desire and worth ethic, but I think there's loads of players who are better at football than Ronaldo. They're not as obviously effective or prolific but at their best can dribble in and out of tight spaces, or recognize space around them and manoeuvre the ball in such a way they always keep play ticking along for their team, or they can dictate the temp of a game, be at the heart of every move, be at the centre of stopping every opposition attack. Players with unbelievable passing accuracy, every through ball is measured and weighted to perfection, they feel the ball intuitively, they can sense the movement of play, can subtly adjust their position to close spaces, have a wider sense of their position on the pitch at all times. Players who don't score but stitch their team's play together, always there to receive and pass, and when they're not there to do the basic essentials the team collapses into individuals. Players who make everyone around them better. Players who don't score goals often because they're more generous and want the team to do well firstly but who can score a wonder strike if their team needs them at that moment.

 

Anyway the film is empty and boring, and spends more time on other things than the football, like Ronaldo relaxing on a sofa with Ronaldo junior for about the 5th time, or Ronaldo on a plane singing along to a Rihanna song, and while that might have been included to show the personality of Ronaldo, it just disappointed me more that he'd have the musical taste of an 11 year old girl.

 

Some find Jorge Mendes, Ronaldo's 'super' agent the star of the film. I found him unpleasant, he's aggressively sycophantic and hyperbolic, he came across as more of a Mafia boss than an agent actually. Ronaldo didn't seem to mind but I wouldn't be able to be around someone who openly lied to me for too long, because their opinion would become meaningless. For Ronaldo, he basks in it, he clearly needs that constant boost to continue the drive he has to be the 'best' as he sees it. It seems more like a curse though, i didn't finish the film and want to be Ronaldo for a moment, his is a film that made me think what it must be like to sacrifice that period from around 18-25 where you dig a little deeper into your interests and passions and form a personality that has quirks and contradictions, because I often wonder if to be the very best you have to be so focussed and single minded things like the outside world don't exist. Raheem Sterling doesn't know who Ricky Gervais is, and Michael Owen has watched 8 films in his whole life.

 

Asked about the Fifa corruption scandal, Ronaldo responded:

"Do you want me to be honest? It doesn’t worry me at all. I do my profession, my job, I give me all for my club … the rest doesn’t matter to me. I don’t care what happens on the outside.”

 

Ronaldo is then asked what subjects are on the agenda in the changing room: “About music, about women, about fashion, about shoes, about suitcases/bags, about jewellery, about haircuts … any more you want me to list?”

 

That isn't a person I'd want to be...

 

I read a suggestion that Tarantino's The Hateful Eight is a vanity project just because it is 3 hours long and features lots of talking. I'd say that was just indulgence, or committing to an artistic purity. And I read an article about vanity projects that defined them as basically actors making a film that they also star in, as though the fact they take full creative control and have a say in how they're portrayed despite playing a character as part of a story is vain. If anyone is as confused by what a vanity project is as I am, then watch this film.

 

1/10

 

Bone Tomahawk

One of the best film titles of the year, one of the best posters too perhaps, it couldn't possibly live up to my expectations based on just these two things could it ? No..but i did really enjoy it, and would put it above Slow West because it feels like it has more substance and weight to it, even if it's a similar story of traveling long distances on horses, camping, encountering potentially dangerous strangers, all in order to reach a destination.

 

It tries to be more hard hitting than it manages to be with its opening murder and BONE TOMAHAWK asserting itself on the screen, as though that is meant to set the tone for the rest of the film. It takes a while to get going, settling into a slump of telling rather than showing, and establishing a slow pace that feels unnecessary. It's trying to establish the characters motivations but I don't think it really works, I don't think Patrick Wilson is particularly good in this film, and I spent the whole time more invested in trying to work out where I know him from than caring about his pretty awful character; I'd be surprised if many people who watch this film are really rooting for him at any point, and even though all the characters are given time to impress upon you their personality and quirks (maybe one of its strengths, I did really like spending time with the other 3 well realised characters), it still feels like it is Patrick Wilson's character's story.

 

It's clear from early on that its slowness owes to the fact the director also wrote the film and can't face cutting out anything. But for this film to be more compelling for me it needed to cut out most of Patrick Wilson's character's relationship with his wife - which didn't contribute to understanding his deep love for her, they seem more like strangers at first, and he seems more motivated by his need to be a hero than anything else - and his struggles with his infected leg, which didn't make me warm to him more, it felt like it was just used to add some real gruelling pain and a dose of harsh reality to the otherwise pleasant trip they embark on. It is effective in doing that, but it is a thriller that isn't thrilling and needed to be slimmed down i think.

 

Where I do think the writer's indulgences improve the film are in Richard Jenkins' portrayal of an old loyal widower to the sheriff (who is completely unrecognisable in the role), who often rambles on about past memories and what

 

he can't wait to do the moment he arrives back home, he gives a wider sense of the world they live in, and gives the film a realism.

Kurt Russel is fantastic as always, and it's great to see Matthew Fox in a film again, i do think he was fantastic in Lost, even if he doesn't have the greatest range he does do some of my favourite intense stares. I wish there was more of him in the film, actually.

 

It falls short for me with the action which if you were to finish the film and then go back and know how it all plays out in the end, ask yourself how would you want certain moments to occur. I think it tries to create tension through the hopelessness and stupidity of the main characters, rather than the sheer brutality of the cannibalistic tribe being too much for them. Some characters are completely wasted, and the tribe don't seem to understanding hunting or the concept of guns, choosing to simply leap out into the open, appearing from nowhere but also a good distance away for your consideration, like a videogame. It was like all the action was skewed in favour of the characters when it meant keeping them alive. I hoped that an infamous Indian killer and sheriff played by Kurt Russell with a beard would offer a lot more. When it matters it's poorly conceived and not effective and believable enough.

 

6/10

 

Straight Outta Compton

In one way I'm the perfect audience for this film in so far as I don't know any of the details of the story, nor have I listened to NWA's music. So it was all new for me whereas fans would enjoy how accurate a portrayal it is or isn't. It's extremely long and slickly presented in that modern movie production way rather than it capturing the spirit of the times, and that's my main issue with the film and biopics in general. They're always a romanticized view of the past and it can be hokey and cliched, and precious with it because the weight of responsibility to accurately portray these people, some of whom visited the set every day affects its raw spontaneity.

 

I got more out of the post-film reading about all the details they left out, and that's my other issue with biopics, how can I fully engage with something where in the back of my mind I'm always wondering, how faithful to the truth is this ? Because I don't want situations altered for 'dramatic effect', I understand why, but I want warts an all, I want to know that Dr Dre attacked a television host 'because he felt dissatisfied with her news report about the feud between the remaining NWA members and Ice Cube', and 'began slamming her face and the right side of her body repeatedly against a wall near the stairway' and that Dr Dre later commented "People talk all this shit, but you know, somebody fucks with me, I'm gonna fuck with them. I just did it, you know. Ain't nothing you can do now by talking about it. Besides, it ain't no big thing – I just threw her through a door." Even if I understand why he now deeply regrets his actions and wouldn't want that side of him being portrayed in this film.

 

Good response by Dee Barnes here though,
gawker.com/heres-whats-missing-from-straight-outta-compton-me-and-1724735910

 

I'm less bothered about the drama and machinations of the various falling outs and want to instead spend half an hour dissecting the origins of the NWA' debut album cover, that's very briefly flung across the table in one scene. Because it's always disappointingly tedious when a group that creates something special throw it all away with little thought because of arguments about contracts and royalties, though i do understand why. Biopics tend to show the human behind the artist, but i don't care about the human who, say, had substance abuse issues and women issues /cliche, I care about the creative process. We're all humans with issues, it doesn't make the story a universal one by talking about these things, it makes it ordinary. The extraordinary bit is the music.

 

And when the film does spend time with the members in the studio coming up with rhymes, it's all too easy and straightforward, there's no insight to the problems solved on tracks. Once Dr Dre convinces Easy E how to say lyrics like he means it, it's like every album seems to write itself. It just manages to demystify the creative process, you build such expectations of something radical as being heavily thought out and deep in meaning when it can just be the most natural thing in the world for the artist creating it, and it's the outside world who find it most strange and are in the best position to emphasize how refreshing it is.

 

5/10

 

Knock Knock

spoilers probably

Sometimes I watch a film and half way through wonder what the director thought there was enough in the script that made directing it worthwhile. Sometimes I might have that feeling that then gives way to more positive thoughts because of the strength of the direction, the atmosphere, tension, the enjoyment of watching a small group of characters interact and enjoying the dynamics of their interactions change depending on how the situation alters.

 

For a simple idea that's contained in one house for the entirety, why not be more creative with it. I generally like single location films precisely because I enjoy it when you can see a director trying hard to give energy a momentum to scenes, and usually dialogue focusses on more interesting subjects and ideas because it's not used to drive the characters to another location. Like, my favourite episodes of Red Dwarf are ones like Marooned, not the ones where they go on an adventure. I loved Panic Room while others were unnecessarily harsh on it. I loved the cgi fly-throughs of the house, its sleekness and tight execution.

 

The two girls' justification for their craziness is weak, like yes if you're as stunning as Bel is in this film and strip naked and physically force yourself upon a man, any man, he'll likely relent. I didn't buy Keanu going further but nor can I go along with their tired moral righteousness which combined with his hopelessness and awful acting didn't leave me with anyone to root for.

 

It did surprise me that for all that is asked of Keanu he came across at his most awkward when talking about his passion for music. Maybe he was trying to come across as authoritative.

 

Just a waste of a film. Maybe others will find Keanu's acting more hilarious than I did. I liked where some of the lines are being spat out like bullets with no pause inbetween, it does become fun to see which ones he gets less wrong. I just forgot to laugh as he was saying them.

 

3/10

 

Flu [Korean film]

I loved this, it reminded me so much of The Tower, which also did its own take on the Hollywood disaster film, this delivers almost everything I wanted from it. Unlike The Tower, whose characters i can't picture or remember at all, there's half a dozen in this film that simply stand out with their personality, both heroes and villains, and who I'm sure I'll remember for a lot longer. It delivers such warm comedic romantic tinged action from the beginning, it's so comforting with it that like The Tower (which has possibly the most infectiously lovely opening of any film ever) allows you get invested before the inevitable terror ensues. I didn't watch this for so long because i was put off by the possibility of a dour gruel, so even if it's bright and mainstream that's what I wanted.

 

Zombie and flu outbreaks are perfect for large scale scenes of chaos in cities and this film delivers on that in ways that are at times truly remarkable. There's some dodgy cgi but even that had an endearing quality to it because there's a flavour to Korean thrillers that I'm not yet tired of.

 

Koreans apparently demand their films make them cry by the end, and this film explores new realms of melodrama I didn't know existed. It is immediately manipulative casting such a cute young girl at the heart of it who throughout is seemingly left to her own devices, and the film introduces various villains who are inserted as kind of harbingers of unjustified selfishness, but it's all done in a lively manner that manages to be consistent in tone and just really enjoyable.

 

I think it complements something like Contagion well, because they couldn't be more different. There won't be a more understated alternative look at a flu outbreak than that film, but I prefer this film's more large scale blockbuster approach.

 

9/10

 

Maggie

Pretty disappointing, the trailer is very misleading in implying that there is a central dilemna at the heart of the film, the words that flash up like 'cure her', 'save her', 'kill her' generate lots of possibilities in the imagination of the viewer, but there is no option to 'save' or 'cure her'. There is only the inevitability she'll die, but not how. The only options are send her away to die a horrible death (quarantine where apparently they throw all the infected into a cage together at different stages of their transformation which sounds like the kind of unnecessary madness that belongs to a different film) pretend to kill her but really keep her locked up in a secret shed in the forest, or kill her, or run away with her...at a distance. There is no stand off with the police, no attempt to escape that the trailer implies.

 

The film goes nowhere. By the end I wished that the beginning had been stretched out longer, and the middle condensed to leave a good 30 minutes of not knowing where it will go. It has a continual air of foreboding, like Schwarzenegger is in the hospital before his daughter has even been sent there, so there's less engagement in the drama of her being captured, you're supposed to be swept along by the direction, which is sentimental and portentous. You're not really in the moment, watching things as they happen, it's like you're being shown them happening, there's a detachment there. It tries too hard to capture the beauty in everything.

It takes a more humane approach to the infected that you're not used to seeing, i wouldn't go near a loved one when they're nearing the dangerous end of their transformation, I'd quickly leg it when they tell me they can smell meat,...and I wouldn't just let them wander around as I have a nap in the dining room..but that's just how films have conditioned me to respond, you full expect Maggie to bite at some point and yet there's still no real tension to any of it, it's all so flat. Eventually, as the film slowed down to almost a stand still, I began hoping Schwarzenegger would be bitten, the film would zoom through his transformation and him and his daughter would roam the Earth together, setting it up for a sequel. The ending is a lot more boring than that, or touching and beautiful depending on how sentimental you are.

It's a character driven film that sold itself as being a tense thriller with a moral dilemna at the heart of it, but I don't think there's much or any character development in there. It's at best a feature length episode of The Walking Dead with more impressive direction and better acting. It even has the standard lets go into an abandoned store and wonder around in the rooms at the back as there's not likely to be a zombie especially waiting months on end for his moment..

 

I actually found the pilot episode of The Walking Dead all those years ago to be more affecting and impressive in its vision to try to capture the kind of haunting sadness of what it means to be a zombie wasting away. Despite this film spending 100 minutes focussing on a teenage girl going through the process, only when she loses her finger did it unsettle me, and that is early on. The quietly crawling harmless zombie with no legs from The Walking Dead pilot still remains a memorable moment.

 

I think it's a 5 that i give 6 because it has a nice mood to it.

 

6/10

 

The BFG

One of the most boring films I've ever seen. I think I am dead inside. I found no reason for any of it, the bfg was annoying rather than endearing, the dialgue offers nothing, the effects are standard Harry Potter fare. I have a real problem with CGI chosen for the BFG rather than Mark Rylance in prosthetics and camera trickery, green screen and editing. I know it's Mark Rylance in mo cap acting, but...still it just makes it boring. I want to watch a film and be like; that's a giant there, how ugly, urgh. Not be like; CGI, more CGI, some more, aren't they shiny. When did CGI stop trying to look real? The only good CGI is the stuff you don't notice. It can't be a feature like this. It misses the point. 'Ohh, the CGI is fantastic!' No, it's already failed. CGI is not exciting anymore. What if it was just a conputer animated film? Cg girl talks to cg giant. What's the difference? I don't know. So much CGI prettiness is like looking at a cg studio's showreel. It doesn't evoke anything. Human boy/girl talking to cg animals, monsters, giants feels so hollow and jarring. It doesn't work. Exceptions are few, King Kong worked because he looked real and was convincing, Golem worked because he had such character, the voice is incredible and you accept that there is no other way to create him. The BfG here has that typical CGI skin and hair that's become standard. Not convincing at all.

 

I am dead inside, but I don't think it works as a film. It never ends. There is no story. Things happen. Then stop, then happen again. Crap review, but it's a crap film. Probably more CGI in this review than there is in the film.

 

2/10

 

Finding Dory

Finding Nemo is one of my favourite Pixar films, I felt like a kid watching it for the first time, I thought it was so sharp and funny and the ocean was the perfect fit for computer generated graphcs, giving the ocean an actual 3 dimensional depth that 2d traditional animation can't match. I thought the way they could eke out so much comedy from each type of fish was inspired, it had that Family Guy quality of anthropomorphizing animals, giving them larger than life personalities in a way that was full of joy. It's not that easy, I've seen Shark Tale. Sometimes they spin your perception of them for laughs, like the turtles, the great white sharks. I think it was so different and so beautifully put together, seamless and effortless throughout that makes it something of a classic.

 

I was ambivalent about this sequel. I wanted to watch it, but wasn't excited. I think Toy Story 2 was the only sequel they should have made, as an exception, because the magic of Pixar is introducing you to a new world each time. So with Dory there's a large amount of familiarity, it replays parts of the first film, while adding new details about Dory's upbringing, then jumps a year ahead. It evokes moments from the first film as a bit of call back but it's anticlimactic whereas the original swept you along and surprised and delighted, like when Nemo strays into the vast nothingness of the ocean and you see the scuba diver approach it's wonderful. You get a sense of scale for the first time, you feel the jeopardy, so when Dory does the same here in exactly the same spot you expect the same thing to happen again.

 

Like Monsters University, it's a smaller film, with funny moments and is fine in itself but lacks the drama and ambition of the originals. It feels so pointless. Will kids who loved the original aged 8 care about the sequel now in their early 20s? And if it's for kids fresh to it couldn't they just watch the original instead?

 

Pixar need to value that originality will sustain them in the long term. Ultimately kids will always want to see their films but I thought their success was defined by the broad age of audiences who went to see their films, they risk losing the adults who will slowly lose interest. I think The Good Dinosaur is the worst Pixar film I've seen by far, so new worlds don't always guarantee quality. I think there's been more interesting well put together cg animations over the last 6 years or so that don't match Pixar's best but are on the level just below.

 

Having a glimpse at their future slate, Cars 3, Toy Story 4, The Incredibles 2, I think it's such a shame they've messed up their body of work. Because this decade will be largely defined by sequels from them it doesn't allow them to go forward. They established such a gold standard for creativity, ideas, animation, that they weren't just innovators but great storytellers, every few years challenging themselves to tackle new creatures and animals, the fur on a monster or the movement of fish in the oceans, each film whether you personally connected with it as much as another held such value. That value sustains the film for decades based on the originality of its world and inhabitants. I love the variation of their films when you look back, I think the diversity and contrast benefits each film, allows you to appreciate it more.

 

7/10

 

Rogue

Sam Worthington gets eaten by a giant crocodile but it's pretty darkly lit, and it's over too quick to be able to really enjoy it.

 

Oh yeah, spoilers.

 

3/10

 

Being Ginger

I had a review written, and strayed elsewhere and letterboxd didn't hold it. It's an opportunity to try to be more succinct, to not comment on myself commenting on what I'd written as I am doing now... which helpfully mirrors how this film plays out, not as an exploration of the perception of 'being ginger', but as a vehicle for the filmmaker to self-loathe his way through the entire thing. It's not an attractive trait, and he's aware of this projection of his self hatred on to other ginger haired men and women he considers ugly. He's aware of the contradiction of feeling insecure about his appearance yet choosing to be on camera thoughout, he even gets a date and only sets his camera up to capture him, because 'it was placed too close and then was too awkward to alter it...and then the battery ran out'. Others might find this amateurish incompetence endearing, because it makes for a more personal film, but it drags despite its short length, it's filled with pointless empty scenes of him sat on a bench staring into the distance, contemplating his ugliness. Wait, is that a bald patch I see.

 

At one point he stands wearing a board with 'looking 4 someone who likes gingers' written on it and all I could think of was John McClane in Die Hard With A Vengeance. A Scottish lad offers him the solution of dyeing his hair, to which he replies 'I don't want to, I want to be myself'. The random passer-by carried the intensity of someone who'd nut you if he'd have to put up with your insufferable indecisiveness for too long, because he's reveling in it too much. He's not so hopelessly awkward where he doesn't have the courage to stop a random girl or bunch of girls and ask the most humiliating question about his hair colour. He can show his film and speak to a room full of people about a sensitive subject personal to him, because by doing that he's being accepted and that overrides the anxiety of doing such a thing.

 

On his website is more of the cartoons of little social situations he's found himself in which really work as funny moments he can share, but there's few of them in the film, which it could have benefitted from to lighten the mood and poke fun at the disproportionate reaction to ginger hair as though it's toxic that he's encountered.

 

The film deals more with his own battles with the physchological scarring he's not recovered from since how he was treated at school. He once tracked down a teacher he had who made him a figure of fun, and rewatches the interview with him. He switches it off half way through, so it serves little purpose for the audience.

 

4/10

 

13th

Bought a month of Netflix just to see this, such is the subject of interest to me. While it's good, it's ultimately weakened by it not being such a revelation if you've seen The House I Live In (difference between crack and cocaine), the few sections of Michael Moore's documentaries Bowling for Columbine (whites fear) and Where To Invade Next? (free labour in prisons) where he addresses it briefly but effectively. I thought like other Netflix documentaries this lost its way towards the end, starting off hard hitting but settling into its slick presentational style of talking heads who can state and re affirm but maybe not really get under the skin of a subject like a narrator can going in depth coupled with the always powerful footage. There were things I didn't know, ALEC, an advisor of the president recorded stating how to twist perception and criminalize groups, the lesser known leaders of the civil rights movement being murdered and the revelance of a generation of leaders being nullified. The film acts as a revelation to those previously oblivious to the central idea, and as a way to energise people into action. It's important and necessary given the reach it will have.

 

However someone responds to this film depends on how incredible the central revelation is, it was a real mind-blown moment to me watching The House I Live In, not how unfair the system is against black people when it came to drug possession offences but how it was an actual ploy to deal with a black population they don't know how to deal with. Just pulling back, and seeing it so crystalized, it's staggering to think of people being monetized in this way. It's the stuff of sci fi, it is The Matrix, human batteries. It's so extraordinary it's like a conspiracy.

 

It wouldn't have served the cohesion of the film, but I would have liked some analysis of hip hop instead of just tracks being played. I would have liked more analysis of who pressured Nixon and Reagon to pursue the criminalisation of drugs, and some history of drugs. The film highlights that these were popular positions to take with the public, but the overall plan by the establishment to lock up those they feel threatened by, that angle is one that is powerful and under explored. The film even lets it be known that Bill Clinton, despite making the situation worse, admitted recently his 3 strikes bill was a mistake, but by phrasing it as such is like implying it was an honest mistake, and he and those advising him didn't realise the consequences. It's sort of a cop out, but maybe not so easy to know where the exact truth lies.

 

7/10

 

De Palma

Wonderful way to present a documentary, De Palma simply sat in a chair, talking about the details of each film he directed, he's easy going, affable, doesn't take himself or his films too seriously. He's at the age where he's free of ego, of having to prove himself, he's just honest, so when he says every other version of Carrie he watches pleases him because he sees all the mistakes that he avoided, there's no boast or arrogance attached to that, he's just talking simply as a director about the craft of movie making, rather than as the director of Carrie feeling the need to put others down to big himself up.

 

I loved its approach. I love hearing about the thought process and choices that go into creative things. They're often hard to find though, these guys aren't neurotic and full of self doubt as to pick apart their films. Every director will say, 'I can't watch my films, all i see are all the things I could have done better'. But try to find self analysis's, they're rare*. They move on to the next thing. De Palma, now retired from Hollywood, rediscovering the essence of his cinematic language pursuing personal projects, is able to reflect on his career openly like this.

 

*The very best already do so much at a higher level before they're even aware of what else they're doing better. So much is natural, unconscious, but he's pretty effusive nonetheless in explaining how he's always trying to approach scenes in new ways. This ought to be the standard for every director documentary, it'd be neat if there were a series of them. I think people can dislike the self importance of creatives talking about the creative process, but I am always eager to, especially what drives them. There's something underwhelming about learning classic films were created in such a matter of fact way under tight conditions, and weren't everything the director wanted them to be. It was nice to hear De Palma say Carlito's Way was as good a film as he can direct.

 

7/10

 

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

I'd have had no chance watching this sat in the cinema, without the aid of subtitles. It'd be like reading a book while tied to a chair, the page turning before you've read it all, unable to stop, re-read, properly digest who is who, and when it's occurring.

 

I can't comment on the book, or the BBC version, this was my first taste of Tinker Tailor and I found this tells more than it shows. It can become so dense and talk-heavy that you don't share their eagerness to discover the mole, because it's not laced in drama and jeopardy, and the most I was engaged was by Tom Hardy's character, whose scenes sit roughly half way. He's more human, vulnerable and honest, and to me acted as an anchor for the plot. But from there it just continues to stall, rather than heating up, each character given their moment but it making less sense as it unfolds.

 

I like slow, talky, dense - police procedurals are my favourite films, and this was so exquisitely shot. But there's a reason it's took me 5 years to muster the enthusiasm to watch it, and that's because I knew it'd be a workout, demand my attention more than it rewards it, be 2 hours but feel like 3, and a disappointment would linger that all the elements are there to love it but I'd still fail to.

 

I took the plunge purely on the basis of seeing another, slightly different Tom Hardy performance. It is obviously Gary Oldman's film, he's really measured, says so much while saying literally nothing, while still being difficult to read. Is he someone you don't mess with it, or someone who just demands your respect. The way he's been shot, the way he holds himself on screen, it's a fantastic cinematic creation that with every watch will reveal more of his subtle facial movements that will unravel more of who he is. It's one of the most perfect bits of casting I've ever seen.

 

7/10

 

Law Abiding Citizen

Flicking the channels on tv, I caught the scene from Butler taking his stand towards the judge onwards and tried to catch up. Once the first act of extreme violence occurred in the cell it took me by surprise, I had this film down as more silly than that without a harsh brutality, i thought; either it's gratuitous and simply nasty or it's taking itself seriously. I was surprised by the direction and cinematography too, the heaviness and icy coolhues, I can't help but find it somewhat slick. I watched the first half in the morning, the trailer, and read reviews. I think the entire film is actually condensed in the trailer, like every key shot to piece together the plot and its turns. Trailer makers put all the extreme visual moments in there that when jumbled together quickly give the impression of so much more, you hear the key lines and your imagination spirals out of control, oh my he's going to take on everyone ! No he's going to kill a few people and blow up a few cars. But you see the helicopter fly over repeatedly ! His vengeance must be on a vast scale, it must. I never learn my lesson too, I always come away thinking; there's more to that film.

 

I know there was Death Wish before, this isn't the first, but I'm just going to say it...with embarrassing preachiness: I'm uncomfortable with this trend of nihilistic revenge thrillers that paint murderers as unfathomably evil who are given an easy ride by the justice system, that genuinely plays into some peoples twisted thirst to see harsh punishment be dealt out. This is further true by the home invasion at the beginning, this really taps into white middle aged American's engrained fear of being invaded, and that such crimes are so rare won't matter. It's only a movie, but its pretty dangerous to stoke this fear I think in the times we live in, creating the vicious cycle of more gun ownership and more incidental murders, either accidently, through act of passion, or through an imagined fear. You only have to read a few comments below wherever this film is streaming to get a glimpse of the kind of language used that is reflective of a type of worrying thought process.

 

This film takes an unbalanced viewpoint, so when it comes to human rights what might benefit the majority will be twisted into just benefiting the few, wihich the right wing rags like the daily mail cling on to, relentlessly, to always spin it that way, to prey on your fears, make you angry, setting in motion the eventuality of trying to erode everyone's basic human rights, reports written as though they're by a middle class woman with the concerns of the middle class woman who is reading it, with the old white man of the establishment above pulling the strings for his own gains. It's dangerous rhetoric, and insidious. Setting the agenda, if not telling people what to think about a subject they set what the subject will be. And people can't escape that bombardment, of what becomes an issue and what doesn't, knawing away at them. Highlighting problems to instigate a kind of negative thinking that is about deduction, you take away the poison, our problems go away. Rather than tackling the symptoms, root cause, inequality, the kind of individualistic competitive society these violent people are bred in.

 

I'm getting so preachy and righteous what is wrong with me. It's just a film.

 

4/10

 

Primal Fear

I've seen bits of this before, but Edward Norton. So it was on last night and I missed the first 20 minutes but Edward Norton. I kept watching and there was stuff between Gere and Linney and with it being 90s with court scenes it has the soft warm orange hues of a TV movie, except ..Edward Norton. In the first performances of an actor, their debut TV or film role, you can see a precociousness to them, a spark, an energy, their face lights up at the sheer joy of being just in something where all eyes are on them. I even got that vibe from Seth Rogen in Freaks and Geeks, like he was just one of the actor's mates and was asked to turn up one time, overjoyed at it all.

 

6/10

 

The Neon Demon

This film will be so polarising, no one agreeing on whether it starts strong or ends strong, nevermind whether the whole film is any good. I liked the opening more personally, I like unnatural awkward acting because there's something off and unnerving about it, she the only human among these sentient beings so obsessed with her natural beauty they just stare at her for what seems like eternity, their admiration spilling over into envy. But I liked Ridley Scott's The Councelor for very much the same reasons, for long static shots with glorious cinematography capturing these stilted dialogue scenes that don't flow well but there's a tangible sense of menace bubbling under the surface that always has me gripped. I'm a sucker for that.

 

This film utilises those long pauses for the tension and threat they bring, her first big fashion shoot captured so creepily. This style of film making really appeals to me, it's like in a TV show even without the unsettling atmopshere, like Boardwalk Empire, with a bunch of gangsters sat around a table trying to come to some sort of agreement about one of them always stepping out of line, it doesn't need to escalate to deliver, just the expectation of it, the threat of violence lingering in the air, anyone ready to explode at any second, compels me so much. 

 

​​​​​​i thought there was a chunk past the hour mark where it drifted along, adding in something superfluous and so unneccesary it was like Refn felt the film needed more colour to its bones, but it was so achingly slow that 20 minutes was starting to feel like hours and it was losing me. It's clear from the beginning and how it progresses where it's ending up, so it throws in a curveball but still ends where you expect, except instead of escalating it stalls, and consequently I wasn't as engaged when something finally happens. It was a bit disappointing as a whole, Refn got the symbolism and I liked the end, but the ..misdemeanor prevented it from being as great it could have been. 

 

Something like Black Swan blew me away by its finale because it was tightly edited and measured enough with its increasing insanity, I love films that leave you breathless by the end, there's twists and turns in that but at no point did it seriously lag and you start looking at your watch and combing your beard. Black Swan kept me glued to the screen and once The Neon Demon lost me the thrill is over and I'm more just admiring it. 

 

7/10

 

Train To Busan

 

I had higher hopes based on the reviews it was getting tbh, but I still liked it. But throughout I was thinking; probably a 6, and then maybe a 7 based on how moving the last 20 minutes are. While not a zombie film, I thought The Flu was better, an outbreak Korean film with plenty of chaos. It's bigger in scale, and is more moving i think, the way it escalates took me by surprise.

 

This is the director's first live action film, his previous films are adult animations that focus on social commentary. I think this could have been darker.

It was a bit blunt how it just brings up selfishness in Korean society, even if they allude to it throughout with the protagonist's job and neglect of his daughter. It was a bit convenient at times, they're quick to use paper to cover up the windows early on but don't think when they're struggling to close the door to use their clothes or bags to cover the glass. And then at the end when the father can't take care of just one zombie, it being the mega bastard main villain that he is, and is dumb enough to put his hand over the zombie's mouth.

 

For any outbreak film, for me the bigger the scale, the more areas we see the better. Basically the whole film is on the train, in train station, on train, on train tracks. The trailer can paint a bigger picture and then you watch it and it's a small inclusive film. I'd have liked more walking into the unknown areas, I'm always fascinated in these films what is happening elsewhere, I found the ending maybe the best bit.

 

7/10

 

X-Men Apocalypse

 

Kind of surprised this is being given such short shrift by critics and film watching people on letterboxd and podcasts. I don't think there's much separating the last 3, except that by now the novelty is wearing more thin. People would be raving about the QuickSilver scene in this had they not seen something like it before.

 

I love the X Men universe as depicted in these films, I wouldn't put X Men 2 as the best, I remember being bored senseless by the end at the cinema, I think they've lightened up since for the better. I don't know which is my favourite, I think they all contain brilliantly realised characters and scenes that surpass anything in the Iron Man, Avengers, Captain America films. The world of X Men is richer, the idea of this school for gifted children, the outside world treating mutants as an 'other', Charles being full of optimism and hope he can change attitudes and live in unity, Erik being full of hatred and revenge, scarred by his treatment of people and fearing it will always be him against them, i find that so much more real and compelling than the counter terrorism tedium of the last two Captain Americas and the insufferable obnoxious bollocks of Iron Man.

 

Just watching Magneto rise up like a god, arms open as he does and manipulate metal..that alone is brilliant to watch. I think just the way each character controls their power, harnesses, utilities it, the way they know and challenge their limitations, makes it always more compelling from a superhero standpoint.

I thought Magneto's scenes in this again were superb, Fassbender elevating it. Each X Men film can pull something like this out, they always have that richness and potential. You could see the absolute fear in the eyes of Erik's co workers as they realised the havoc about to be wreaked upon them. I loved what he could do with a single coin.

 

I think even though X Men is an assemble of characters each with specific gifts, the films don't allow the plot to get in the way of that like in other superhero films, it always bring it back to each individual character and their power.

​7/10

 

Housebound

---------------VAGUE SPOILERSSS---------------

This was absolutely brilliant. If every film was as well thought out and as complete as this, there would be no reason to hesitate when deciding what to watch next. It has been sat there for a year, only once it was recommended did I try it. Within 5 minutes I was sold on the wit and warmth of the characters and clash of personalities between mother and daughter, who are perfectly cast for their parts and whose bickering could entertain me for the film's duration without the need for it to deviate. But it does, switching from genre to genre, leading you to places you could never have guessed, and works because it carries the wit with it, and it's just so enjoyable. The quality of its execution and its originality combined to leave me at the end credits feeling like this is a classic. Its so packed with ideas there's only a moment of disappointment at the film spinning off into a new unexpected direction, leaving the supernatural behind.

 

I loved it, and unfortunately to heap praise on it to persuade others to watch leads to expectations about what the film might possibly contain, when it is at its best when entirely surprising you in how it unravels.

 

8/10

[auxien]

Holy shit. Movie reviews sub-forum pls. You are officially a mod there now.

[doublename]

Does this forum have a hall of fame?

[eugene]

nice text