Apparently this story has groundings in Mellors own history with her mothers affair so, with this in mind I felt there could be some interesting honesty to the work which had started out as a play.

Episode One -

The first episode opens intriguingly with a fairground worker being shot by an unseen assailant in full view of shocked punters. After this it dramatically slows down somewhat, (almost to the point of inertia), as it traces repressed housewife and mother Betty, (Billie Piper), throughout an illicit affair with a Polish man named Craze, (Theo James), to the backdrop of 1950s Leeds.

I’ll start by saying that the performances were good. I can’t fault Billie Piper overall, even if her Yorkshire accent did tend t’ slip, (not that mine is much better as whenever I try it I always seem to end up sounding like ‘Foghorn Leghorn’ for some inexplicable reason). Theo James plays a charmer well as well so no complaints there, (although it does look like he’s had ample opportunity for practice in real-life). The period look of it is also all there with a well detailed set-design which lends it a credible environment and atmosphere. This was backed-up by the costumes which all seemed to fit the piece. Not that I’d be able to tell mind being no authority on 1950s Leeds but still, it seemed authentic from where I was sitting. The episode, being part of a two-parter still felt self-contained as a stand-alone which was a definite positive in what was a feature length running time. The opener, as stated earlier, set-up an intriguing ‘who dunnit’ premise which gave you the impression you were about to dive head first into a murky world of deceit and betrayal, (which it did to a degree), but ultimately I felt let down.

The problem was the pacing which gave way to a lot of mournful looks and solemn glances. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for subtlety and that some thing’s are best left unsaid but for its length it just felt there really wasn’t enough happening. I’m not asking for gunfights and explosions but just something to keep the tension building which I felt it was trying a bit too hard to do at times. Great films such as ‘Brief Encounter’ have managed the subtlety of repressed yearning and desire perfectly but I felt this was a little too empty. At times it was as if I was watching a ‘vintage chic’ fashion shoot, (but that might just be a fault of my own pop-culture addled mind). Theo James has the look of a male model and Billie Piper is, well, Billie Piper; Secret Diary of Rose Tyler and former pop-singer. It basically had the look of wallpaper. Glossy nostalgic wallpaper. It was a shame as there was a fair amount of potential to this with the ‘intrigue’ factor and repressed womanhood themes, it just kept failing to surface. Sometimes it appeared as if it was going to but then it would disappear only to be replaced by more longing stares. I understand that there’s a certain amount of pathos to affairs in that they’re ugly and destructive by nature but I did start to feel like I was being teased. I guess you could also argue that they consist of a series of anti-climaxes but this still feels like it’s cheating a bit.

All in all I was left feeling that I really hoped the next episode picked up the pace a little and, being left with a ‘coming next week’ teaser it appeared that there could be some interest in the premise of dealing with the consequences of an affair later on in life. Here was hoping I didn’t get cheated again.

Episode 2 -

We see that Betty has grown-up into her old age and is now being played by Sue Johnston, (off ‘The Royale Family’), only now she’s ‘haunted’ by the memories of her salacious affair with Craze, (who keeps popping back-up to remind her and us), as she heads off into senile dementia. Her husband is the ever non-communicative Donald, (Alun Armstrong), who enjoys espousing un-pc olde-worlde rhetoric within the now eighties Thatcherite Britain. She’s still got her memories and regrets though which all come to ahead when her son, Mark, (Andrew Lee Potts), approaches his wedding day which will see him move to Australia with his fiancé.

I’ll start by saying that it’s an interesting idea; the consequences of a potentially destructive affair and its repercussions years down the line. Actions and results, the regrets of things left unsaid. There’s good potential in the subtext here as a lack of communication plays out to the back-drop of the eighties, miners strike et al. The kitchen-sink environment plays well to all this as well. There’s also some generally tender moments which work quite well.

The problem lay, once again, with the structure. This time though it played out like a Radio 4 play, (and not one of the good ones but written last minute ones). I realise it was a stage play before but it all felt rather laborious, especially some of the dialogue which felt quite on-the-nose. The acting was pretty rudimentary, (so not much to report there). Most of all though was the way in which it not so much built up but fell towards soap-opera territory, which came across as a bit ridiculous during the climax. I realise she was telling a true story but the question was why? I understand that there were points on communication, (or lack of), intermingled with regret but it all seemed to get lost in the melodrama. Maybe if it built towards it more effectively over the two episode course but it didn’t ultimately losing out.

Overall this should have been a singular TV movie and never really justified itself as to the two episode treatment. It’s quality not quantity and employing the ‘less is more’ ethos would’ve made this story far more effective.

I’m not sure what to make of the fact that it’s being released ready for Mothers Day, ‘Hey mum, affairs aren’t such a good idea you know’? That being said it would still make a pretty good gift, (translate that as ‘easy’), regardless of this possibly misconstrued sentiment. At least it’s more interesting than the rudimentary bunch of flowers and chocolate.

The DVD is released today, (the 27^th), of February for a retail price of £19.99 and £10.99 through Amazon. You can also purchase here through High Point Entertainment.

Dealing with cancer is always a tricky subject but nonetheless it’s taken head on here in Will Reisers comic screenplay starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Seth Rogen.

When dealing with the topic of cancer, or even reviewing it at that, it’s difficult when deciding what tack to take, (especially here publically). My personal natural instinct I have to confess is to crack in with some ill advised joke. I’d like to blame that on being British but it would be too easy. Dealing with this emotional minefield of a disease has always been a tricky one, especially when choosing how best to convey said emotions. Do we resort to clichés or don’t we? In the past though it’s usually been the clichés that can tend to rule the roost with made for TV specials exploiting them which can also be emotionally damaging when coming to express yourself, (Dave Eggers ‘A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius’ being a good analysis of this). But the big question which lies is can we laugh with all those dodgy jokes we attempt to repress in such circumstances which is where 50/50 has stepped in.

Adam, (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a twenty-seven year old program writer is diagnosed with a rare strain of spinal cancer. With his friend Kyle, (Seth Rogen), he comes to terms with his disease. Also helping him along his way is young trainee therapist nurse Katherine, (Anna Kendrick), who helps him to overcome whilst navigating his troubled relationship with Rachael, (Bryce Dallas Howard). Lessons are learnt, people are changed and understanding is gained in many of the usual, (and unusual), ways in this comedy.

The thing is this film did work. There may have been that ‘Apatow shtick’ going on in places, (even though it wasn’t actually Apatow), especially with some of the dialogue. But for all intents and purposes it did work. I mean, Seth Rogen was still Seth Rogen, that guy we’re all supposed to want to have a beer with, but his role within the context of this film was great. He may have been playing himself again but for a guy expressing the subtleties of an emotionally inarticulate male trying to help his friend it was done really well. But the film comes across as well paced and tactful whilst a decent performance is put in by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. The main thing though is the humour which helps prevent it from progressing into the territory of mawkish sentimentality. It really works well in balancing it out with the pacing and tone. It’s still emotionally sincere to its subject matter losing nothing in that department, (maybe even creating more of an effect). It came from a personal story by Will Reiser and it’s a good one at that. I want to finish with some attempt at humour of my own now but I’ll leave that up to the film itself which you should definitely not miss.

]]> http://electronicfarmyard.com/games-and-movies/filmreviews/film-review-5050/feed/ 0 http://electronicfarmyard.com/games-and-movies/filmreviews/film-review-moneyball/ http://electronicfarmyard.com/games-and-movies/filmreviews/film-review-moneyball/#comments Fri, 23 Dec 2011 18:11:18 +0000 Sam http://electronicfarmyard.com/?p=10589 Director: Bennett Miller.
Screenwriters: Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin.
Running Time: One hundred and Thirty Three Minutes.
Certificate: 12A

Make sure you catch this latest Baseball film which hits the ball out the park for what is expected from a sports underdog movie. But what does it look like from a British perspective?

I don’t know Baseball and I’m shit at maths. What qualifies this review then? You tell me. Now I have instilled you with confidence I hope you can trust this particular ‘underdog’ to safely traverse the Baseball board-rooms that Moneyball inhabits. In this latest Hollywood offering on one of their ‘great games’ we get to see the other side of the dug-out with the help of Aaron Sorkins fine penmanship who, as seen with ‘The Social Network’ has a particular talent for making seemingly mundane business dealings into high Shakespearean drama. But the question for me here is can he make this accessible for us Brits? The Social Network was all well and good due to the fact most of us have Facebook in our daily peripherals but this is Baseball. Then again, thanks to Americas dominance of modern pop-culture I ‘feel’ I know more about the high-school politics of a cheerleader, (despite never even having met one), than I do about, say; King George and all that jazz. So how does this hold up with Baseball then?

Based on the apparently true story of the 2002 Oakland Athletics Baseball team run by their manager Billy Beane, (Brad Pitt), an ex-ballplayer himself who never truly lived up to his potential. His low budget team is struggling to keep its head above water in the face of big league teams with even bigger payrolls. He wants to win the World Series so step-up economist and recent Yale graduate Peter Brand, (Jonah Hill). Together they take on the old establishment of ‘sporting heroes’ to create a team based on statistics, economics and mathematics in order to which their winning goal.

To start with regardless of my British perspective I did enjoy this film. My initial worry was that it might avoid the question over whether or not a recreational should be dictated by money. The point being though that big league sport has always been a business, (the same with our British football being bombarded by beer adverts). I may not be keen on sports but I know enough to realise that there should be a ‘love of the game’ at the heart of it, (or am I just being naïve?). The film did seem to favour showing the ‘old guard’ as dinosaurs set in their ways though which felt a little unfair not looking at it from their perspectives as much as I’d of liked. That being said it did still examine the essence of the sport, (and all sport for that), which is not to lose. Looking at it through the Machiavellian lens of big money games did seem like a great way to get to the heart of this essence in a modern context. It felt like a maturing view of Americas love of the game and all the legendary folklore that seems to surround it as they ‘embraced the bigger picture’. In short it’s a long way from the likes of ‘Field of Dreams’ and its simplistic grandiose interpretation of the game.

Again I’ll stop here to restate that I realise I’m no authority on the sport, (or any sport for that), but the film allowed for novices like me to watch with ease. There was some small talk at times which reminded me of being stuck in numerous football conversations I couldn’t escape from. Thankfully though they brush over them quickly and you don’t have to understand all their technicalities; it’s the classic underdog story placed behind the numbers and it’s a good one at that. The performances also help to power this along with Pitt playing frustrated passive aggressive well enough and Jonah Hill making a successful transition from comedy to drama, (although the Apatow stable has always flirted with elements of both in their comedies).

In closing, I realise I’ve stressed I’m no sports guy a fair bit but I’ll make a confession. I do watch the World Cup and when I do I want England to win. I guess this ethic may be ingrained in all of us to some degree then…

In this latest film from Tarsem Singh we get to see ancient Greece being defended against the Titans ruled over by Theseus replete with ripping biceps and ripping limbs. How does it hold up though?

Another 300, anybody…anybody? Can I hear it for another 300? Aaany takers? You over there watching Youtube who we’ve just blasted with ads, interested? Sure we can’t ‘tempt’ you? It’s very good. No? Going once, going twice…

As you can see I went into this just a little bit biased and that’s a difficult trap to break out of when trying to form that all objective opinion and stuff. But I’ll try. By the gods I’ll try.

This film from Tarsem Singh who also directed The Cell has been creating his big Hollywood blockbuster, (or so they hope), action epic. Maybe he’s no Aronofsky but he does have a pretty good eye for some interesting big-budget abstract visuals. How will it play in this bronzed up take on Greek mythology though?

In this film we see Theseus, (Henry Cavill), defend humanity, (which in this case is ancient Greece), against the maniacal King Hyperion, (Mickey Rourke). What Hyperion needs to aide himself in his nefarious war is the Epirus Bow which can kick everyone’s ass. The bow lies within Mount Tartarous and it’s best he doesn’t get it as that would be a bad thing indeed. Meanwhile the Gods are hanging out in the sky and they reckon Theseus is their best hope to save the day.

Before I go on I’ll say I did try, I promise. It looked really nice, sleek and shiny with big homoerotic battles between perfectly toned men as they fought for most inconsequential plot ever, (I mean seriously, I challenge you to recall any of that synopsis I just put). Tarsem did also have some of his aforementioned visuals creeping out from underneath but, even though it was all very slick he never really ‘let go’. They could’ve just done away with dialogue in all honesty and really gone to town.

But, like with many of Zack Snyder himself’s films you can’t polish a turd and this is no exception. I know I should be professional and articulate myself in a clear and coherent manner but I’m really fighting the urge to just start writing boring, boring, boring for the rest of this review as this is how it truly left me feeling. There was nothing engaging about it at all as I didn’t care about any of the characters, the story was uninspiring and the dialogue lifeless. To be fair it is a difficult thing to get right with all the constant pontificating which is why Game of Thrones is such a great show in that it manages to pull it off and pull it off extremely well. This film doesn’t.

In short if this film proves one thing it’s that immortality may not be all it’s cracked up to be as it left me wishing for the sweet release of death to free me from its dull shining pectorals. At least I gained some form of lesson then…

Bruce Robinson’s big-screen treatment of Hunter S. Thompson’s early foray into writing hits the cinemas with Johnny Depp in the lead. So grab yourselves a rum and coke and check this out.

It’s not one of Hunter S. Thompson’s best books but, to be fair he did write it early on in his twenties as he was testing out his literary chops and it was only at the bequest of of Depp that he decided to release it in 1998. So why choose to film this one? It appears that this can also be accredited to Depps insistence upon the project. It does have a strong filmic quality to it though, something which film-makers have had trouble in gaining in regards to Thompson’s other works, (i.e. Fear and Loathing). That being said it was still a great book by anyone else’s standards if it wasn’t for the original Gonzo himself penning it. I myself read this particular book when in Goa where there was a similar ongoing ‘corruption of a local community by westernised tourism’ theme ongoing as well, (which also was reflected in Alex Garlands ‘The Beach’). Whilst I enjoy Thompson’s cinematic outings on a whole I do feel that the cynical undercurrents and thematic motifs are largely remiss in favour of the visual spectacle of the whole thing, (which admittedly is the key to cinema). But, with adaptations I always feel that whatever artistic license is needed to alter the story to get it on the screen is acceptable as long as it can justify itself by retaining the core thesis of the source material. With ‘Withnail and I’s’ Bruce Robinson both writing and directing, (once again upon Depps interventions), that this would be in assured hands.

Featuring Johnny Depp as the American journalist Paul Kemp, (loosely Thompson again), finding himself in Puerto Rico working for the on its way out local newspaper come community rag, (so not unlike the Far[Redacted]), in 1960. Whilst running up a heavy bar tab, (which largely consists of rum obviously given the title), he gets involved with corrupt local developers headed by Sanderson, (Aaron Eckhart), and his girlfriend Chenault, (Amber Heard). All this whilst contending with the locals and drop-outs on the paper…

The thing is, like the book, it’s not a bad film. But also, like the book, it has a lot more potential, (of which Mr Thompson came to fully realise later on in his career). It had all the elements there to make it great, it was just it fell short in many places. There was the trademarked Thompson prose, (most of which surprisingly came from the pen of Robinson himself), in a breezy look-back at the break-down of the American dream, (a reoccurring theme in Hunters work). It had frenetic moments with good comedy and some choice lines and it’s a pretty good story as well that becomes a tale of ‘origins’ on-screen. That’s the problem though as it seems everyone’s a little too close, (regarding Depps friendship with Thompson), to the subject matter in what comes across in a slightly reverential tone. Depp shows that he’s passionate about his appreciation of Thompson but this starts to come across as posturing as he apes his hero, (even if it did work in Fear and Loathing). But here it seems like a superhero ‘becomings’ story with lines such as ‘I should try and speak for my readers and that is a voice made of ink and rage’ and whilst that is a cool ethos, (one that we should take up here at the Farm[Redacted]), it seems a bit of a shallow treatment for a man of stature. I can deny I haven’t idolised him myself in the past, (even going through a stage of drinking rum and coke), but then I’m not directing the film, (as I couldn’t direct traffic to be honest), but if I was I wouldn’t be directing Batman. I’d be making sure it’s about Hunter S. Fucking Thompson.

Initially I did want to like this because, like lopping a cow in half and proclaiming it art half the fun is in the surrounding controversy, (yes, I know I’m a puerile middle-class boy; so sue me). But this sense of the puerile started to overbear the film as, to be honest it just felt lazy as it dragged on and on which, at 87 minutes long is never a good sign.

Alright, I’ll be honest; I did ‘appreciate’, (for want of a better word), the first human centipede. For a film that revelled in its vileness it was actually pretty good. Aside from Tom Six’s posturing exclaiming it to be ‘the most shocking film’, (regardless of the fact ‘A Serbian Film had also been released), it was self-aware and well made. The main issue I’ve always had with shocksploitation films such as Saw and Hostel in the past is the way in which the content is justified to the audience. I know it might not be popular to say but I felt that whilst Hostel knew what it was the Saw series indulged itself in self-justification for what was essentially a franchised Halloween sickfest that just became pretentious. That’s not to say shocks can’t be worthy when done well with films such as ‘Irreversible’. In short it’s about being honest with the audience and the first centipede was that; Six had some gross-out idea and wanted to share it.

The synopsis then…but what can I say about the story that hasn’t already been said? Following on from the first film ‘The Human Centipede 2′ features the silent Martin, (played very well by Laurence R. Harvey to full creepy effect), who’s a mentally disturbed security guard. He’s just seen the first centipede film and is seeking to replicate it in true post-modern style. Needless to say creating a ‘human centipede’ ass-to-mouth with only a toolbox and no medical degree isn’t going to go well…

Don’t get me wrong, as I said earlier the sole idea of just taking the piss with such a vacuous and nihilistic film like this is kind of funny at first glance. But then, as I’m watching it I can’t help but get the creeping thought that says plain and simply ‘oh fuck off you utter dick’, (and, just to re-iterate that’s to the film not myself…this time). It’s just it reminds me of when I was a teenager and me and my friends would try and out-gross each other or, in other words it’s just one long Aristocrats joke. In fact I can see Tom writing it now as he’s sniggering to his mates ‘yeah, and then right he sows the ass to the mouth and there’s like shit exploding everywhere’. It’s like Beavis and Butthead wrote it, (except that would’ve been funnier). There’s better actual comedians out there like Doug Stanhope who can tell funnier sick jokes in, get this all of a matter of seconds. No need to draw it out, bang it’s done and I’ve let out all the tensions of being repressed and middle-class in what, a fraction of the time done here? There’s definitely a lesson for the film-makers there.

I’ll admit, I did initially kind of ‘enjoy’ it but, like some drunk guy at a party who’s got the same sick joke chemically repeating over and over in his head out loud it’s time to say ‘Tom, just shut the fuck up’ and walk away.

Or alternatively just go watch a Troma classic…

Review Written by Andrew Black

Split into two parts Melancholia is the new film with Kirsten Dunst and Keifer Sutherland,recently released here in the UK from the ever divisive Danish art house provocateur Lars Von Trier. When they become aware of a new planet in the sky, Melancholia, all roads lead to, well….melancholia. So here is Andrew Black with the first of his reviews.

Split into two parts Melancholia is the new film from the ever divisive Danish art house provocateur Lars Von Trier. Part one opens much in the same way as Von Trier’s previous film Antichrist. Whilst he has not specifically referred to it as the second film in one of his constantly ongoing ‘trilogies’, Melancholia is clearly a companion piece to Antichrist with which it shares not only several themes but also a similar stylistic approach. It is worth noting at this point that while the two films share equally efficacious content, and similar cinematography, the approach to cinematography in Melancholia is considerably less effective in its application than it is in Antichrist. The opening scene, in which we witness the end of the world, again utilises the distinctive super slow motion of the Sony Phantom camera so beautifully employed in the Antichrist prologue. Whilst the imagery is certainly striking to look at, the repetition of such a bold statement of technique invites comparison. Immediately it was my opinion that, in the Tarkovskian dream-like scenes of Antichrist and its surrealist images, the technology is correctly put to use. Whereas the overly slowed down frames of Melancholia’s operatic opening (set to Wagner’s Tristan und Isolde prelude) are delivered as almost still compositions.

At an undisclosed country manor hotel we are introduced to Justine, played by Kirsten Dunst (who deservedly received the Palme d’Or for her role). It is the day of her wedding and everyone around her is determined she’s going to appreciate the effort they have gone to. Several guests allude to Justine’s evidently long-term issues with depression by constantly asking her if she is happy. Her sister Claire (the always excellent Charlotte Gainsbourg), clearly the more balanced and composed of the two, does her best to ensure proceedings run smoothly, but as the evening progresses Justine’s psychological state begins to worsen. How and why she has invited such a slew of unpleasant and uncaring guests is a bit of a mystery. One notable, Justine’s manipulative and demanding boss (played by the Von Trier regular, Stellan Skarsgard) is especially repulsive. When she becomes aware of a new planet in the sky, Melancholia, all roads lead to, well….melancholia.

Cinematographically Melancholia bares the typical Von Trier hallmarks of free flowing, hand held camera work with which he has become synonymous ever since he abandoned the precision of his early works noting “nobody can ever truly master framings”. But here he takes things perhaps a step too far, the movement is so abrupt it creates an aesthetic that is beyond realism. The digital shakes combined with zooms and jump cuts take you almost out of the drama itself and into some kind of Jean Luc Goddard inspired realm in which we become conscious of the technique, laying bare the device.

Although fine acting both in lead and support is present here, not least from Justine’s parents (John Hurt and Charlotte Rampling) who give her plenty of cause to slip further into the looming depression, the ensemble at this point feels rather wasted. The whole dysfunctional affair feels heavily influenced by fellow Dane, Thomas Winterberg’s, Festen. But whilst that was an inspired experiment in Dogme liberation, here we are subjected to pure tedium, occasionally interrupted by moments in which Von Trier allows his brilliant eye for intimate observation to surface. Although these moments are far too transient to sustain such mess.

Part two is more of a balanced character study in which Von Trier allows performance to shine. The two sisters are each given equal screen time and their resentment for one another is thoroughly explored. Justine has, at this stage, lapsed into near catatonic depression, handled exquisitely by Dunst, who brings a measured poise that reveals an ability few felt she possessed. Claire is now fully aware of the danger the planet Melancholia poses and becomes obsessed by its trajectory. Whilst her husband, played by Keifer Sutherland (baring the typical Von Trier male characteristics of being both a scientist and philosophically unenlightened), who tries to reassure her that the planet will not hit Earth (“you have to trust the scientists”). Justine does little to help matters as she tells Claire “the world is evil, we shouldn’t grieve for it”. Again here we are reminded of the resounding theme at the centre of Antichrist; the belief that the world is evil (“nature is Satan’s church”). The film then takes on a more sedate but equally sombre tone as Justine becomes more physically functional the closer the planet gets. Mercifully Von Trier peppers the gloom with some exquisite moments of interaction between Claire and Justine, interesting aerial shot sequences of the sisters horse riding and some inspired Pre-Raphaelite reproductions; one such moment features a naked Dunst bathed in the moonlight reflected off Melancholia.

In the final moments, as the planet bares down on the Earth, the film provides us with plenty of room to examine our own thoughts. There is a beautiful stillness to these scenes that, combined with the powerlessness of the characters, evokes a metaphysical gut check. Von Trier’s position is clearly aligned with existentialist thinkers Nietzsche (Nihilism) and especially Sartre (existence precedes essence), so the end of everything comes (as it does to Justine) as something of a relief! It is only in these closing moments, in the face of impending annihilation that Justine is shown as completely comfortable with the world around her as she becomes the pillar of strength and voice of reason. It is at this juncture that Melancholia as a work is also at its strongest. The weight and significance of the moment is very moving.

Overall Melancholia is not one of his masterpieces but, as usual it is a daring and ambitious work from Von Trier. Despite a lacklustre first hour a very strong part two transforms the film into a fully realised, cinematic meditation on the nature of depression. In the end, as Melancholia collides with the earth; bringing about the end of all things, we are left with plenty of resonant imagery and a substantial amount of food for thought (how does one accept the end of all things?). It stands as yet another inspired and thoughtful piece, albeit essentially intellectually unenlightening.

Once upon a time children, there was an adventurer named Tintin but after decades in obscurity, two famous director’s decided it was time to resurrect their childhood hero, because they know what audiences really want, thanks guys! And everybody knows, Tintin is still super fantastic-like and hasn’t dated in the slightest, just like this film’s director, the late-great, Steven Spielberg. May he rest in peace.

It may surprise you to hear read, dear reader, that this critic is not a fan of Herge’s comicbook creation, Tintin. Now, I’ll be the first to admit, I don’t have an encyclopaedic knowledge of the Belgian waffle-faced twit, known as Tintin. So, I’ll try to keep my hyperbolic-bollocks, to a minimum. But I do know my shizzle-dizzle, when it comes to he who arts in heaven, (that’s Spielberg, not Cod, obviously). I happen to be an anaesthetist. Winning! In your face religion.

So, what’s wrong with Tintin, because clearly I didn’t like it. The truth is, it wasn’t hideous, especially when comparing it to the likes of other ‘Blockbuster’ offerings such as Transformers: Dark of the Moon. But that’s like saying, “please punch me in the leg Mr. Bully, because it doesn’t hurt as much as when you stamp on my head, steal my pocket money and piss on my cheese and chutney sandwich”… bastards! Spielberg knows how to deliver popcorn entertainment. Correction. Spielberg used to know how to deliver popcorn entertainment, apparently shooting a film from the grave can be something of a handicap. Who knew? If you need proof that Spielberg has lost the plot, then I refer you to his last few films; Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull = Harrison Ford looking like a wrinkly, venomous scrotum of coughs and wheezes; Munich = boredom; War of the Worlds = the bananas cult of Scientology; and finally The Terminal = just like Spielberg’s inoperable cancer.

Ok, so let’s discuss the actual problems that Tintin suffers from. First, it’s far too long, which is surpring considering it’s under two hours. But despite all the locations, explosions and sword fights, it was tedious at best. My nephew, who is only two, is far more entertaining and he can’t even speak properly, the lazy little sod. The characters are generally uninteresting and what’s truly problematic is that they’re not sympathetic, at all. So, no I wasn’t invested in Haddock’s mission to rid the Haddock family tree of its curse and nor was I interested in Tintin, the vacuous little shit, who’s only interested in propelling his fame. Just look at all the clippings he’s got framed all over his walls, it’s not even like he still lives with his overbearing mother. And where’s his girlfriend or boyfriend for that matter? His only companion is that stupid dog, Snowy, until Fishbeard comes along but I can’t decide which of the two he’s actually fucking. Maybe it’s neither, perhaps it’s both, or possibly it’s the Thompson Twins? The Twins are awful, they have nothing to do other than catch a pick-pocket, which just distracted me from the film’s actual narrative. Honestly, with Edgar Wright working on the script, you would think he’d have tried to give his buddies, Simon Pegg and the fat one, something with a bit more weight to it.

This is the first animated film Steven Spielberg has directed (albeit posthumously). So why he opted for motion capture is beyond me, what it does do is beautifully capture the lifeless, glass like quality in every characters eyes. Which brings me to the 3D. It tells you something about the medium, when the best that Steven Spielberg (and his rigormortis) can deliver, is sheets of paper floating in the wind and glass shattering in that ‘oh so cool’ 3D manner. That’s the death toll you hear ringing in your ears Mr. Cameron.

Maybe it is me. Maybe I am missing something… No, I don’t think so. Tintin isn’t the worst film you’ll see this year, but that doesn’t mean it’s any good. Spielberg, dead or not, we deserve better! But from the looks of your shooting schedule, all we’re going to get it in the near future is horses and dead presidents. You might as well be dead, you useless zombified relic.

As some columnists have already suggested Lynne Ramsay’s newest film should perhaps be renamed, We Need To Talk About Men. As a critic fairly conscious of gender issues within cinema (and society), it’s hard to believe any man could leave the cinema (after watching Ramsay’s film) and not feel the slightest pang of gender related guilt. Tilda Swinton’s Eva is clearly a victim of the patriarchal society.

The film is an adaptation of Lionel Shriver’s bestselling novel and it documents Eva’s relationship with Franklin and their children, but specifically the relationship between mother and son. The relationship between Eva and Kevin is fraught with tension and a mutual loathing. Kevin beautifully articulates the essence of their relationship in one scene, where he says to his mother, “Just because you’re used to something doesn’t mean you like it. You’re used to me“. A statement that Eva evidently identifies with because she offers no repost in disagreement.

From Kevin’s days as a baby, child and young adult, Eva struggles to raise her son, who displays extremely challenging behaviour. The only time that Kevin shows Eva any warmth is when he’s ill or anxious.  Franklin however has no problems with Kevin, but not because he’s a good father or a skilled parent, Kevin is simply manipulative. It becomes clear that Kevin loathes his father to, perhaps for not being the role model he needs or perhaps because – to get all Freudian – he wants to ‘bang’ his mother! The relationship certainly flirts with the Oedipus complex, one scene explicitly alludes to Kevin’s underlying desires, in which Eva interrupts Kevin masturbating. Kevin doesn’t recoil with embarrassment, as you might expect, instead he holds his mother’s gaze intensely and continues.

So, We Need To Talk About Kevin is all about men, is it? Yes, most definitely. The film offers a damning portrait of the male, whether they’re inept doctors, who are unable to diagnose Kevin as autistic, (something the film hints at), or ineffectual fathers. Franklin, (Kevin’s father) borders upon being a child himself, ill-equipped for parenthood or marriage. A father who is easily fooled and manipulated by his son. Eva’s colleague, whom she works with at the travel agency is a cowardly man. He asks Eva to dance at the office’s Christmas party but Eva declines, saying she doesn’t enjoy dancing. Rejected the colleague attacks her verbally, reducing her to a possession, a possession that (according to him) few men would want. This seems to be the film’s central theme, that the patriarchal society (and motherhood to a degree) reduces women to subservient possessions, who are here to satisfy the male species. Revealingly, one of the few sequences of sexual intercourse in the film briefly shows Eva giving Franklin a blow-job. It is man who is the sole recipient of pleasure. Womanhood is depicted as misery and suffering, suffering at the hands of incompetent, incapable or just plain-vicious men.

There is one male character in the film that is actually pleasant to Eva. However, the young man is wheel chair bound, disabled and therefore his masculinity is feminised because of his disability. He’s not the virile aggressor, which usually typifies male characters, his disability infers a typically feminine characteristic, passivity, so the only men in this film who are capable of genuine kindness, are feminised.

We Need To Talk About Kevin is a beautifully shot film, which is rife with symbolism. Perhaps a little too rife? Whilst there is relatively little blood shown, the colour red permeates the film, and by it’s conclusion you will feel as though you witnessed the massacre, first hand. We Need To Talk About Kevin is a damning portrayal of modern man, men shaped by Homer Simpson, men who are childlike, and fathers who are barely competent. As ever, it isn’t man who suffers but woman.

Adults Shows

I’ll start with the after hours world of adults TV which, (as mentioned before), have no restraints as such. Well, not so many anyway. Firstly there’s their ability to spook us out from The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits, (although I do remember that being on at dinner as I’d change the channel quickly during the intro just to spite them), right through to The X-Files, (which now also just seems like a spooky soap-opera by today’s standards). Their ability though to set the benchmark for new fangled scares remains a strength and major attribute to their cause. The Stone Tapes is a great example of this as, whilst the acting may not have been great and the effects are just lights flashing it still effectively used a realistic setting backed up with scientific plot devices so much so that it still holds influence today not just in TV but the field of ‘residual haunting’ as a whole.

Another key strength of adult-vision is its ability to incorporate real world scares like the terrifying Threads showing the realistic effects of nuclear fallout during the height of the Cold War. That being said I saw footage of a nuclear explosion as a kid and was then watching the skies for a flash and checking the electricity every time a damned light went out for years to come.

Lastly it their ability to lie to their audiences with fake broadcasts such as that seen in Ghost Watch and, further back War of the Worlds, (OK, that’s radio I know but cut me some slack). Here the audiences weren’t even given the respite of knowing it was just escapism as they dived behind the sofa, (or dived off buildings and called up the emergency services). With that I’ll now turn to kids shows.

Kids Shows

 We can start with the obvious like Doctor Who with its classic knack of making everyday household objects like bin-liners into the next boogeyman. Surrealism in kids shows though has always been a large staple as you can head anywhere given the scope of the imagination of the audience watching. Personally for me shows like Eerie Indiana exemplified this, (kind of missed the whole Goosebumps thing but I did get to enjoy playing with the bobbly light-up books). The fact you could do pretty much anything, (minus sex, drugs, gore and profanity), has always been a bonus though.

But for me it was always the unintentional scares which terrified the most. Shows like this that aren’t supposed to be scary but are closer visions of hell than even Dante himself could ever hope to reach. My terrifying show, (although I still loved it at the same time), came in the form of Toms Midnight Garden; it was supposed to be a nice story of whimsy based on the classic novel but that white lady scared the hell out of me, (same with Chitty Chitty Bang Bang as it wasn’t so much the child catcher but those hideous Aryan kids who seemed brainwashed or something). Maybe this is just my own shit I’m dealing with but I’m sure there’s cases in everyone’s childhood of something similar happening.

So there you have it. All the votes are in, (from moi), and I feel my decision’s been made. Therefore I’m going to have to go with kids shows. Partly due to that horrendous Junior Christian Science nightmare but mostly because of the long lasting torment they’ve caused and the hours of expensive therapy. Thank-you children’s television for giving us all terrifying visions of the future.

Cannibal Holocaust

Okay, this is an obvious one but I thought I’d start out with it to set the scene. Originally believed to be a snuff film by the Italian courts the director, Ruggero Deodato, had to produce the actors in order to get himself out of jail. Similar to the likes of The Last Broadcast and The Blair Witch Project it, (some say pioneered), the fake found footage genre by showing a bunch of documentary makers meeting some cannibal tribes in the Amazon and generally being slapped about in all manner of gruesome ways. With sadism and nasty bits involving private parts animals were harmed during the making of this film much to the chagrin of my vegetarian sensibilities. Either way its influence remains to this day.

The Evil Dead

Alright this is a classic and, although you may argue number two maybe the better one, (to which you’d be right), this one paved the way and not just for Sam Raimis career, (unfortunately not so much for Bruce Campbell). A parody of the genre this features all manner of puss filled eye popping of the undead as Ash, (Bruce Campbell), heads off into the woods to take them out when an incantation from the Necronomicon brings them back. All three of the dead trilogy are great but it’s this one that makes it into the video nasties due to its infamous ‘tree rape’ scene which, needless to say didn’t make it into number two, (which was ostensibly a remake).

The Last House on the Left

An early from Wes Craven in 1972 with a current, (and annoyingly pointless), remake left in its wake. The influence of the original though is what makes this film worthy as it paved the way for all manner of shocksploitation, (regardless of how badly it was made). Feeding off the exhaust fumes of the sixties the film underlies every parents worst nightmare as a couple of teenage are kidnapped and have all manner of horrible stuff done to them in what is a revenge horror, (not to give too much away). It’s got a million holes in it, (largely due to a lack of budget understandably), but it still sums up the times and the fears. Morals abound it makes its way into our cavalcade of hideousness due to its insurmountable amount of influence, (as well as igniting Wes Cravens career).

SS Hell Camp

I had to pick this as it pretty much sums up the whole ‘Nazisploitation’ genre, (along with the exploitation factor as a whole), pretty much to a t. Pointless, sleazy and completely scraping the bottom of the barrel a mutant sex-fiend is created by the SS to molest women and generally be a bit of a gross twat for no other reason than to apparently piss the censors off, (and hence sell by the black-market bucket-load). It’s pretty shoddily filmed and it’s artistic merit could argued in that it has non other than to, (and I apologise for using this term), troll the audiences. If that’s the case then I guess it’s Van Gogh. Either way I guess someone had to do it so we can collectively move forwards…

The Driller Killer

I remember seeing this film as a teenager and not being so much disappointed by it, (as was usually the case with these sort of films that were hyped up in their ‘horrifying’ surrounding controversy), but amused by it. Thankfully it turns out it was a dark comedy and I wasn’t maladjusted. Abel Ferraras film starring himself as a New York artist who goes around killing tramps and the homeless in this punk art-house exploitation film. Later he went on to do ‘Bad Lieutenant’, (with Harvey Keitel not Nicholas Cage), which really wasn’t funny at all but still a very powerful film. The Driller Killer also helped instigate the ‘Video Recordings Act 1984′ which saw video nasties officially recognised. You yourself can see what all the fuss was about as it’s now in the public domain here.

In terms of the films, I couldn’t help but notice the astounding variety in the types of features screened at this festival. Not only did they have films from all around the world, they also took on movies from a wide number of genres, I didn’t see two features that were alike throughout the entire festival. Normally independent films tend to fall in a select few categories as a result of budget restrictions, but the Raindance guys managed to find films to please everyone. I can’t imagine there is a single person in this country who wouldn’t have found something to love in this line-up. And the quality was surprisingly high as well, their selection process is clearly very refined, even the movies I personally wasn’t as keen on had alot of merit to them and I could see exactly why they were chosen in the first place.

In my Introduction to the Raindance Festival coverage, I talked about how I really wanted to be surprised by these films, because for me there is nothing more exciting than when a feature captures your imagination in ways you weren’t expecting. And boy did this festival deliver on that front, films like Monk3ys and A Thousand Kisses Deep really caught me off guard by completely subverting my expectations of them and movies like Act’s of Godfrey and Seamonsters caught me off guard by being far better than I ever imagined they could be. And for me, this was the real joy of the festival for me, an event ripe with pleasant surprises.

Beyond the films, the other remarkable thing the festival achieved was that it really managed to capture the spirit of independent film without ever coming across pretentious. 90% of the screenings I went to were followed by fascinating Q&A’s with cast and crew and they almost always opened the floor to audience questions. The people behind the movies were always happy to talk after the screening in the lobby. And the location itself, the Apollo Cinema in Piccadilly is such a great place to watch films, the screens are fair in size and the theatres themselves are very clean and comfortable. All in all I found the festival had been very well organised, there was never much confusion and the films were spaced out just enough to ensure I had enough time to pick up a ticket between the screenings. They were also careful to avoid genre clashes, so, for example, the horror fans never had to choose between two horrors screening side by side.

The only criticism I have of the organisation of the festival was the decision to tag short films on to the front of selected features. I understand why this decision was made, it definitely gave some shorts more exposure than they otherwise would have had, but ultimately it feels vaguely dismissive of the format to put them on as a warm up for a feature. Also it causes all sorts of chaos when the short films cast and crew are present in the theatre to watch it, because when the short ends they don’t want to stick around for the feature so suddenly dozens of people are trying to file out around you while you try to watch the opening minutes of the feature.

The amazing thing about this festival is that you could spend hours and hours there watching film after film, and still feel like you have missed out on great stuff. There are so many amazing things to do and see, that one person simply cannot enjoy everything the festival has to offer. I honestly only managed to scratch the surface with the films I saw. Overall, I had an absolute blast and would like to thank the people of Raindance not only for organising such a brilliant event, but for inviting the Farmyard in to cover it. It was a wonderful event and I honestly urge everyone reading this who didn’t go this year, to make the effort next.

Thanks for reading.
You can read the rest of my Raindance Coverage at the following links.

Introduction To Raindance
Raindance Film Review – Another Earth
Raindance Film Review – Hollow
Raindance Round Up #1
Raindance Film Review – Black Pond
Raindance Film Review – Act’s Of Godfrey
Raindance Round Up #2
Raindance Film Review – Monk3ys

So let me start this rather déjà vu review by reiterating a point I made at the start of the Hollow review. It is an absolute fallacy that found footage is an easy genre to tackle, sure it’s potentially cheaper and simpler to produce but these films entirely rely on their ability to convince the audience the events in the film are a matter of document rather than fiction. And that level of believability is not easy to achieve. Hollow failed to achieve that, Monk3ys did not.

So Monk3ys, for those unaware, is a brilliant little found footage physiological thriller that screened at this years Raindance Film Festival. The premise is that two scientists are conducting and documenting a behaviour experiment in which they place three conflicting personalities, each representing the Id, the ego or the super-ego, in a small confined space for 48 hours. The majority of the film is the footage captured by the in-room cameras, allowing the audience to observe the experiment as the documentary makers eventually would after the fact. But things take a turn for the worse when the 48 hour mark passes, and the doors don’t open.

So because I’m not one to bury the lead, I will outright state that Monk3ys was one of my favourite films of the entire festival. The script is utterly fantastic; it’s a simple story told well and its greatest strength is the characterisation of the people involved. It’s a film about people and personalities, and its thin plot allows it room to properly develop complex and three dimensional characters. And while it is a complex film, it never resorts to holding the audiences hand by going for on the nose, elaborate and detailed explanations. Much like a real experiment it simply presents us with evidence and trusts us to draw our own conclusions.

It’s written very naturalistically, the dialogue feels very conversational and genuine, almost as if we really were watching a documentary rather than a piece of fiction, and this adds real impact to the later portions of the film when the situation starts to get out of hand. Even in moments when the characters were spouting what could arguably be described as exposition, it was handled expertly and blended into the story without the audience realising they were being fed information at all. And I think this result is a combination of a well written script, intelligent direction and the amazing performances.

And speaking of which, the acting in this film is nothing short of astounding. The premise is so heavily focused on the idea of exploring personality types and the actors really had to work very hard to ensure the audience believed they fit into those roles. The film explores the gap between the expectations of the people running the experiment, in terms of their subject’s personalities, versus the reality of how the subjects act in the room once they drop the masks as their real, far more complex, personality traits shine through. And while the script does alot of the heavy lifting regards to elaborating on this, the actors are really the key to making this complex notion function and they do a wonderful job of doing so. In my opinion, without these performances it wouldn’t matter how good the script was, these elements would all fail miserably.

The film also avoids potentially boring its audience by mixing in footage of the experiment being set up, which allowed the audience to get out of the room itself. I particularly enjoyed the pre-experiment interviews with the subjects that give the audience a deeper insight into the characters. These moments also contain thoughts from the people running the experiment and while the film never capitalises on this and used it as a chance for them to explain why they did certain things (for example, leaving the subjects in the room for a longer period of time than they were originally told) it does give us insight into their intentions and expectations for the experiment.

I was also impressed with how the film looked. Being more interested in screenwriting, it’s very rarely that I point out the visual style of a film, and even less often that the film in question is from the found footage genre; a genre that doesn’t exactly have a history of visually strong films. But Monk3ys was different somehow, as a result of the documentary premise and the single room they weren’t forced just to use shaky hand cam, and could get away with using locked off cameras cleverly placed; this actually lead to some really strong and interesting imagery that gave the film tonnes of atmosphere. Without going into too much detail the look of the film also benefited from some amazing editing. The last few minutes are particularly spectacular.

But that does bring me neatly on to my only genuine criticism of this film; its ending. Firstly, without giving too much away, one problem with this ending is that tonally, with the film doing such a brilliant job of presenting a believable and naturalistic world, the surreal nature of the climax makes it feel like the ending of an entirely different movie.
And secondly, Monk3ys was far too open ended. Don’t get me wrong here, I am all for ambiguity, I love it when a film has an ending that can potentially mean a multitude of different things that leaves the audience debating their theories hours after the credits roll. Monk3ys attempts to achieve this, but doesn’t leave with audience with enough information to even construct their own theory. The last moments contain so much conflicting information, it’s almost impossible to form an explanation that completely works and makes 100% sense. As a result the audience were confused and in need of closure that they would never receive.

I’ll be honest, if it weren’t for this ending Monk3ys would have been my favourite film of the entire festival. And while it still easily falls into my top three, it’s a real shame that it fell at the last hurdle like that. But, ending aside, Monk3ys is one of the most intelligent and fully realised films of this year’s Raindance, a great idea executed well that engages and entertains in a way not many other films can.

Thanks for Reading.