Peter J. Clark's The Meaning of Life

Film of the Year 2009

2010-01-17T05:17:00.000-08:00

So here is my review of 2009. 2009 was not the best year for film. Most films, especially the highly awaited ones were very mediocre. 2009 provided only a handful of really good films and not all of those did well at the box office. January started well with the fantastic Frost/Nixon, the enjoyable Australia, with Slumdog Millionaire and Defiance worth a mention as great films. A definitely above average Oscar season. The post-Oscar season in February was drab as usual with Bolt being particularly disappointing, Franklyn was a highlight as a very well made film. One of the most eagerly anticipated films of the year was Watchmen. Unfortunately Zach Snyder decided to make it long and depressing rather than a watchable film experience. March was redeemed by the Damned United, a well made and enjoyable film and Duplicity which was enjoyable but just that small x-factor (not the tv show) short of achieving the same stylishness of Oceans 11. April saw 2 poor British films in The Boat that Rocked and In the Loop but 2 much better American films in State of Play and Monsters vs Aliens. May saw the Summer start well Coraline and Angels and Demons were both good films but were both overshadowed by Star Trek, the film that set the benchmark for this Summer's films. June saw Terminator: Salvation and Night at the Museum 2 entertain but not even get close to Star Trek. July saw the 2 big films Transformer 2 and Harry Potter 6 both live up to expectations and compete with Star Trek as great films. Michael Mann's Public Enemies was disappointing and Year One leads the race for the worst film of the year. August saw a host of mediocre films, Ice Age 3 had its moments but was not as good as its predecessors and The Hurt Locker is boring, not much happens and is not worth all the awards and nominations it is getting. September saw the rejected Oscar films and District 9. No one saw District 9 coming. It did so well mostly due to lack of competition but was well acted and compelling. The Soloist and Dorian Grey were ok but why they were out is September was understandable. Julie and Julia was the highlight of September, it was charming, funny, made you laugh and made you cry. Possibly a bit too nice for the Oscars but Meryl Streep and Amy Adams were superb. October half term was flooded with kids films of which 2 were outstanding, Up and the Fantastic Mr Fox. Up was a great film, it may suffer from not being quite up to the standard of Pixar's best but was the best animated film of the year. November was all about Twilight 2 which was better than the first, silly in places but was clearly still trying to be a good film and was therefore ultimately not. The Men Who Stare at Goats was entertaining while a Christmas Carol was terrible. December saw Glorious 39 be almost brilliant but not, The Informant and Where the Wild Things are disappoint and Avatar be exactly what we wanted.

After all that my shortlist for Film of 2009 is: Avatar, Up, The Fantastic Mr Fox, Julie and Julia, Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen, Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, The Damned United, Monsters vs Aliens, State of Play and Star Trek.
Excluded due to Pete Award Nominations: Frost/Nixon, Slumdog Millionaire and Defiance.

My film of 2009 is Julie and Julia, 2nd, Up and 3rd, Star Trek.

December Films

2009-12-03T14:52:00.000-08:00

Glorious 39

This is the latest Brit indie film from Stephen Poliakoff who has recent specialised in TV. The cast is an assembly of some of the best British talent: Romola Garai (the central performer who recently appeared on TV as Emma), Bill Nighy, Julie Christie, David Tennant, Christopher Lee, Charlie Cox and Jenny Agutter among others. Consequently the acting is good and the direction is good maintaining tension for the first 3/4 of the film. The plot is a kind of 1930s 39 Steps, and espionage thriller about a group of people who don't want Britain to go to war with Germany (not because of ideology but because they don't want a war) so are attempting to remove any opposition to the Chamberlain government. Romola Garai and her boyfriend Charlie Cox find out about this but are helpless when everybody they tell dies. The downfall of this film is that it tries to be indie, it tries to defy convention when if it had decided to go with the conventional ending it could have been a fantastic film. Unfortunately it tries to be different and distinctive and unfortunately falls flat at the end with an ending that serves little point when it could have been the spy film of the decade.

The Informant

Steven Soderbergh must be close to winning the prize for the worst year in cinema. His biopic of Che Guevara was released too late for the Oscars and split in 2 both parts of which flopped at the box office (so badly they finished before I had a chance to see either) after lukewarm reviews and a realisation that very few people are actually fascinated with Che Guevara and lots of people don't consider him the good guy. After that he made this film which has flopped to the extent that I caught its last showing at my cinema 2 weeks after release. I can see why too. The Informant is about a man who appears to be a whistleblower on corporate corruption but end up having also stolen millions from his company and being a compulsive liar. The film presents itself as light-hearted but ends up spending too much time trying to help you understand its complex story to make you laugh and gimmicks such as the Matt Damon voiceover that never says anything to do with the plot becomes stale after a while. This film feels a bit like Soderbergh is trying to do what he did with Oceans 11 except that it lacks the style and coolness of Oceans 11 and lacks the jokes to be a comedy. Parts of the film in music and camera angles are as though Soderbergh is sending up 70s spy film (James Bond at least twice) but these are not more than vague references to films that very few people watched and even fewer remember, not stylish or funny enough and to be honest slightly boring, 6/10.

Law Abiding Citizen

Gerard Butler is obviously the cheapest "name" actor in Hollywood as he is churning out mediocre films at an alarming rate. The plot of this film is that Gerard Butler's home is broken into by 2 assailants; he is knocked unconscious while his wife and daughter are murdered. James Foxx's career driven prosecutor, afraid of the prospect of losing, gets one of the offenders to testify against the other resulting in one of the perpetrators getting the death penalty and the other going free much to the anger of Gerard Butler who sees this as an injustice. 10 years later the execution of the convicted killer goes wrong and ends up being much more painful than it should have been. Shortly after the other killer is brutally killed and Gerard Butler confesses to the crime and is imprisoned. However, killings continue and it becomes clear that Gerard Butler wants to bring down the legal system that denied him justice but how s he doing it from prison. The film plays out its plot well, there is a sense that Butler and Foxx are doing for the pay check not the quality of script but the film is executed well enough. The opening scenes are more violent than necessary and if the film had understood that it isn't that good and inserted a bit more fun into the mix it would have been improved. The quality of twist at the end was always going to decide the quality of this film an it is quite good, 6/10.

Where The Wild Things Are

Max, a young boy, gets angry at his Mum, runs away to an island populated by wild things. They make him their king and together they build a fort, however, things don't go to plan and Max decides to leave and go home. Spike Jonze directed music videos before films, the trailer was a music video and this film has a sense that he wants it to be a music video. The film does some things well, the wild things are wild and have their dark side and everything about the films looks brilliant. However, the lack of plot tells in the film, there is not enough fun and enjoyment in the film, the poetic elements of the filming don't quite work and the film ends up being a serious examination of childhood when childhood is meant to be about fun and innocence. I needed to be able to enjoy the film and I didn't 5/10.

Avatar

This is the one we have been waiting for, the special effects adventure to end all special effects adventures. The plot is basically the evil military company wants the resources under the home of the peaceful forest dwelling Navi who won't leave their home. Sam Worthington uses an Avatar (Navi body) to spy on the Navi and ends up liking them falling in love with one of them and leading them to battle the vastly technologically superior humans. Visually the film is fantastic, all the money that went into technology was well spent. The rest of the film is standard blockbuster fare, well executed and very enjoyable. The film is also very well acted from a comparatively little known cast and has illusions from Iraq to global warming. If the film has faults they are these: at almost 3 hours it is a little over long for a not incredibly complex plot and the final battle where they are saved by mother nature is a bit of a stretch. A great film nonetheless, 8/10.

November Films

2009-12-03T12:29:00.000-08:00

Twilight: New Moon

The Twilight series is the film executive's dream. The first film was successful despite having no "big" name actors, very few special effects, a poor script, no plot and is completely resistant to all bad reviews. The first film, which I didn't review in this blog due to the fact that I didn't bother to see it in the cinema (although I did finally see it on DVD) had one attraction which was that it was so bad that it was very funny in places. The second in the series has a new director (Chris Weitz) and some new cast (Michael Sheen and Dakota Fanning) and is better. The film starts slowly but once it gets going it is funny in places, particularly the cinema scene, and there are some action sequences, particularly the forest scene, that are good. Having said that the key cast is very poor, the plot is terrible and the result of the film not being quite so bad also means that it is less laughable. All these flaws, however, you know going into the film, going into the film you know there will be a dim girl, vampires and attractive men showing off their torsos and that's exactly what you get, 6/10.

The Men Who Stare at Goats.

This is a comedy about a journalist (Ewan McGregor) who goes on a trip into Iraq in 2003 with a retired psychic warrior or Jedi (George Clooney). Over the course of the trip the journalist finds out all about the Us Army's Jedi programme, its founder (Jeff Bridges) and the ambitious soldier who brings it down (Kevin Spacey). This is a fun romp poking fun at all the Iraq war films and the US military as well as a lot of Colod War spy thrillers. Clooney is on form as his Jedi warrior, playing it entirely dead pan as is Bridges who is fantastically realised as the hippie army commander and Kevin Spacey the ambitious youngster. The film falls down in that it is constantly being silly but never really makes you laugh hard. There are very few actual jokes, one liners or bits when you are meant to laught the film is just silly and for a film which is an unadulterated comedy it is not quite enough. A good film but could be funnier, 7/10.

Taking Woodstock.

This is the story of an intelligent, popular Jewish boy who turns down his prospects of a successful lifestyle to resurrect his parents failing farm/hotel by persuading the town to hold the Woodstock music festival. The film for the first 3/4 is a charming and funny story of a new graduate who turns down the opportunity to move to San Francisco and pursue his dreams to save his Polish immigrant parents hotel from bankruptcy and explores his relationship with his parents. The acting is good, Imelda Staunton and Henry Goodwin are particular highlights with good support from Liev Schreiber. The final part where the festival actually takes place is slow with no particular plot and a pointless and unfunny drug trip with Paul Dano. The film tries to capture the Woodstock sub culture by including lots of drugs and nudity which goes over the top and distracts from the central point of the film which is a much more moral story about parental relationships and money. This could have been a great film but ultimately is just unfulfilled potential, 6/10.

A Christmas Carol

Robert Zemekis has been working motion capture technology ever since it became viable in an attempt to make everyone else catch on. With the upcoming Tintin films, made with updated mocap technology developed for Avatar, maybe it will but Zemekis has made the Polar Express, Beowolf and now Christmas Carol without really showing the technology to be any better than real life or making any really good films in the process. I will admit that the bar for a good adaptation of A Christmas Carol is very high with great versions from Alistair Sim, Patrick Stewart and the best of them all from the Muppets it was always going to be hard to make this good. Zemekis goes for over the top accents and action sequences to try and bring a new flavour to this film. However, the fun bits of this aren't funny and the serious bits aren't sad, the film fails to draw in the viewer. The ghosts, particularly the ghost of Christmas past, are poorly presented and Jim Carrey is not on great form as Scrooge. Bearing in mind the quality of the previous adaptations of this Dickens novel you need to have a good idea and a new perspective to bring on this tale if you want to tell it, Zemekis has no new ideas just a new technology toybox and technology alone does not make great films, 4/10.

October Films

2009-11-19T10:13:00.000-08:00

October and half term arrived on time as usual and with a bigger than usual collection of family films that were either held back to avoid an over congested Summer after an over congested Summer 2008 or pushed forward to avoid Avatar and New Moon at Christmas.
Up, this year's Pixar film suffered from being moved from a Summer release in the UK (though it had one in the US) so that Disney's G-Force wouldn't crash and burn at the box office. The story is of a man who marries his childhood sweetheart who shares his dream of going to South America and exploring. They live their lives together unable to fulfil their dream and she dies without being able to live her dream, and this is just the first 5 minutes. Her husband is about to be put in an old person's home so decides to fly his house to South America using helium balloons. On the way he discovers that on his porch is a boy scout who is trying desperately to get his helping the elderly badge (it's the only one he need) so that his father will come to the awarding ceremony. They get to South America to find - in short - a weird bird, talking dogs and a bad guy. Pixar make sentimental films, Wall-E was sentimental but the 2001 factor made it work, Cars on the other hand is the worst Pixar to date because it sacrificed humour for sentimentality. Up almost does this. The plot, once in South America is fairly run of the mill and before South America is more sentimental than interesting and the film needs moments, the dogs in particular help, to make the film amusing. I say this not because Up is a bad film in any way but because Pixar set themselves a higher standard of excellence than any other filmmakers and while Up is certainly good it doesn't measure up to Monsters Inc, the Incredibles or Wall-E, 8/10.
The Fantastic Mr Fox, the other animated (I count stop motion as animation) film of the half term couldn't be more different from Up or pretty much anything else. It is the story of Mr Fox who was a chicken thief, gave up because of a request from his wife and decides to go back into thievery one last time. He doesn't, however, count on the persistence of the farmers who try to catch him in revenge. This film was adapted and directed by Wes Anderson whos films have never quite caught mine, or indeed mainstream cinemas imagination. He has a unique brand of humour that is so subtle at time that it forgets to make you laugh. The Fantastic Mr Fox, however, moves at a frantic yet very stylish pace, is funny and entertaining. The voice acting is good, the imagery is fantastic and works as a film. Wes Anderson completely succeeds with what he is trying to do and this is his best film to date, 8/10.
Surrogates, a futuristic thriller about the possible angers in store starring Bruce Willis. This is exactly the sort of film, like for example Eagle Eye, that critics hate and I like. I like good fun thrillers, Surrogates, however, is neither. It is predictable, takes itself much too seriously and ends up very confused and even Bruce Willis with hair can't save it. Transformers, Eagle Eye and friends are all successful because at the heart of the film is fun, their aim is to entertain. Surrogates seems more interested in trying to make a point except that the point in question is that using robots instead of our own bodies may not be a good idea, a topic I have never seriously thought about because it is completely irrelevant to life. Gattaca worked because designer babies may well be just around the corner, robots, I'm not so sure, 5/10.
The Vampire's Assistant, I went into this with low expectations and was surprised. This film was clearly aimed at 14 year old boys to try and compete with Twilight taking the girls market. While this will never draw the kind of audiences Twilight draws it is a better film. The two main characters are well developed if not so well acted and John C Reilly's vampire is very good as is the villain Mr Tiny. Not the best film but perfectly enjoyable, 7/10.
9, not to be confused with the upcoming Oscar contender Nine, this is a computer animation set in a post apocalyptic future where mankind and robots have virtually wiped each other out. The best post apocalyptic films, the Matrix and City of Ember (last October half term's post apocalyptic film), thrive on believability that it could actually happen. 9 is aimed at kids, assume that they don't know what is possible so the main plot consists of the sack doll 9 waking up in this post apocalypse meeting another sack doll who is promptly kidnapped by a robot dog. On a journey to save this doll 9 accidentally kills it by feeding its should to the master machine which wakes up and tries to eat all the sack dolls souls. If you are not 6 years old and you don't take this at face value then the entire film becomes absurd and if you are six years only then you will be too scared and saddened by the film as half the characters die and the evil machine is very scary and you will cry all film and mummy or daddy will wish they hadn’t taken you. The film also is very intense and hard gives you a laugh in its thankfully short running time. This film simply is too scary and sad for the children and has nothing for anyone older and from a film produced by Tim Burton and Timur Bekbambatov among others I expected much better, 4/10.

September Films

2009-11-05T10:46:00.000-08:00

This September has been the dumping ground for the films that studios have either rejected as not good enough for the Oscars or not big enough to compete in blockbuster season.
District 9: this is the film not big enough to compete against Transformers 2 in the Summer or Avatar at Christmas but is still a big special effects film. The story is of an alien spacecraft that mysteriously stops over Johannesburg and the aliens inside are unable to restart it and live in their own ghetto called District 9 just outside the city. The man charged with relocating the aliens to a concentration camp (see the parallels) away from populated areas accidentally ingests a liquid that gradually turns him into an alien. The evil arms company experiment on him to try and exploit the alien technology that they have been unable to use. Enough explaining the plot. District 9 is a good film, it has its flaws, it is not as original as it thinks it is, it is very intense, a joke or a moment where the main character isn't in excruciating pain would have helped. Those elements aside the acting, from a virtually unknown cast, is very good, the effects are good and the plot is well told, 7/10.
Julie and Julia: a film put here as the end product is not considered Oscar potential. The film is 2 stories, one of the American chef Julia Child (Meryl Streep) who moves to France in the late 1940s as her husband is an embassy worker and is bored so takes cookery lessons. She proceeds to be so successful that she co writes a cook book that she then struggles to publish. At the same time although actually in 2002 Julie (Amy Adams) moves into a house that she dislikes, does a job she dislikes and she decides her outlet is to cook all 420 (I think) recipes from Julia Child's cook book in a year and she writes a blog about this. The acting in this film as you would expect from Streep, Adams and Tucci (playing Julia Child's husband) is sensational, Streep playing the more comic role while Adams is more serious. The film is very charming and light hearted but makes you run the full gamut of emotions; it makes you laugh and makes you cry. There are 2 flaws with the film, the first it tells you neither time period at the start of the film which is confusing and takes time to work out although it is actually quite important to know and secondly the ending is a bit drab and there is no climax. Being based on a true story the film doesn't have the Hollywood ending but the ending does feel slightly anticlimactic. The film I think was considered too nice to win awards but for me will take some beating this Oscar season, 9/10.
The Soloist: another film that missed out on an Oscar pick. This film is another true story that of a journalist in LA who specialises in human interest stories meets a man who is homeless but an accomplished cellist and attempts to get him somewhere to live. I haven't been the biggest Joe Wright fan after a poor pride and prejudice and a mediocre Atonement he has come to less literary and more American material. The acting is good but the film is harrowing and ultimately there is not much actual progression in the situation of the cellist from beginning to end and one wonders whether the story which is neither uplifting or ultimately of success if necessarily film worthy especially when compared to its 90s predecessor "Shine" where the main character ultimately becomes a successful pianist again, 6/10.
Dorian Gray, another attempt by the British film industry to hit the mainstream. The problem with independent British cinema is that it tries to be too clever, their previous film to try and hit the mainstream, Franklyn, was too clever and not enjoyable enough to break despite having all the potential. Dorian Gray has a good cast, Colin Firth being especially good, and is well put together. It captures the Gothic feel well and makes its moral point. However, in a search for thrills and excitement goes somewhat over the top at times, the picture going uuurrrgggghhhhh was at times more humorous than scary. The film also had little to enjoy about it at times making less enjoyable to watch and ultimately making me give it a lower rating than it necessarily deserves, 6/10.

August Films

2009-10-06T11:21:00.000-07:00

August is once again upon us, one of the slowest months of the cinematic calendar as all studio executives are American and don't realise that August is still Summer holidays and prime film watching time. Anyway this is what I managed to see.

Ice Age 3: Dawn of the Dinosaurs. I was a big fan of the first 2 Ice Age films. I'm not going to explain the plot as the first 2 films were weak on plot and it only gets worse. The Ice Age films don't do what Pixar manages to do which is break the formula and have some originality but what makes them good is that each film has good ideas. Ice Age 2 had a mammoth that thought it was a possum and the vultures singing food glorious food, Ice Age 3 has a weasel (I think) with an eye patch voiced by Simon Pegg whose nemesis is a giant dinosaur. The film is funny and enjoyable but is no classic 6/10.

G.I.Joe. Ever since the Mummy I have been a fan of Stephen Sommers, he knows how to make a blockbuster. As with Transformers if you go to see a film inspired by a toy you are not expecting a cinematic masterpiece, but explosion filled fun. G I Joe certainly tries to be fun and it is enjoyable and mildly funny, however the script could have used a bit more work. The characterisation is bare, they have a black and a white main character when there is only room for one in the plot and the finale finishes nothing merely sets up what they hope will be a lucrative franchise. Having said that the film has its moments, this is visually Sommers best film, and the cameos from Sommers favorite actors is also entertaining, 6/10.

G-Force. We have this film to thank for Up (the latest Pixar) being delayed until half term. I had not asked for this film or any desire to see a group of special forces Guinea pigs instead of a new Pixar. I did attempt to put this out of my mind as there is nothing I can do about it before watching the film. American film producers obviously think that people want to see what a group of commando guinea pigs would do in a normal town rather than on a mission fighting terrorists or something which I rather disagree with as this film would be much more interesting if that's what they had done. The film itself is quite funny and entertaining but not as funny or entertaining as it thinks it is, 5/10.

The Hurt Locker. This film is the latest by Katherine Bigelow (director of Point Break) and got some very good reviews therefore I went in with fairly high expectations. This film is Bigelow on serious rather than fun setting and is about a bomb disposal squad in Iraq whose bomb technician gets killed and they get a new one with 30 days left of their tour. The film follows the events up until the end of this tour. The film contains two well known actors, Guy Pearce and Ralph Fiennes, and they both die at the end of their only scene. The main actors are good but are nothing special and I wondered if Pearce and Fiennes had done more whether the film would have been more interesting. This is the issue with the film as basically nothing happens, some guys defuse some bombs, next day they do it again. There is no overarching story and the film is making no point. Clearly Bigelow's aim was to make a film about Iraq which is not trying to make a political point about the conflict. My issue with this is I like films that are trying to make a point, I don't necessarily agree with the points but I have a head for politics and this makes the film interesting. The Hurt Locker, however, is a well made film but is boring pointless and in which nothing happens and therefore gets the same score as G-Force which is a far inferior film but I didn't get bored in it, 5/10.

July Films

2009-08-31T11:16:00.000-07:00

July is here and with it the biggest films of the Summer. I like Summer blockbusters and this year is much less congested with them, the result being that I actually got to see most of them.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. I was a big fan of the first film, I did not watch the cartoon when younger so was new to the whole thing and still very much enjoyed it so went into this film with high expectations (i.e. excitement, explosions, big robot fights and most importantly fun). My expectations were met. The plot is that the Decepticons (bad guys) have a boss called The Fallen who doesn't like humans and wants to destroy the Sun using a lost machine that requires a lost key and the only way he can find these 2 is by using the information that has been implanted into Shia Leboef's head. It's Transformers of course it doesn't make any sense. This films replicates the action and adventure of the first film while having a lot more humour and thus was very entertaining and, despite being almost 2 1/2 hours I enjoyed every minute of it, 9/10.

Year One. Harold Ramis wrote Ghostbusters and directed Groundhog Day, one of the best comedies ever made. How the mighty have fallen. Year One involves Jack Black overacting for all he is worth, Michael Cera doing the best with the material he has been given and a lot of toilet humour. In short not funny or worth seeing, 3/10.

Public Enemies. I am a Michael Mann fan and have been eagerly awaiting this film. While I don't think that Heat is a particularly standout film I was a big fan of Collateral. I also have high expectations when I hear names like Johnny Depp and Christian Bale in the same film. The film deals with the life of the criminal John Dillinger. My first issue with the film is that I have no real knowledge of American 1930s criminals or indeed US domestic politics at the time. The film assumes that you have at least a cursory knowledge of icons such as J. Edgar Hoover. The fact that I didn't meant that it was difficult to put the film in any context. So when America's first war on crime is launched I am not sure why. The other issue with the film is that there is very little to remark upon in the way that there is in Ridley Scott's American Gangster for instance. Dillinger is represented as someone who is good at his job rather than someone who has some outstanding skill or ingenuity in the way Denzel Washington does. Mann also clearly idolises Dillinger despite the fact that he is a criminal. All this comes together to mean that the film is no more than ok, 6/10.

The Taking of Pelham 123. I am generally a fan of this type of thriller but this one take itself a bit too seriously. I did not know the original but this one is clearly trying to create a relationship between the hostage taker and the metro employee similar to the relationship created in Phone Booth or Inside Man. This doesn't quite work though, the film isn't quite enjoyable enough or clever enough, it has one twist which it hints at so many times you have worked it out an hour before it is revealed. The film showed a lot of potential and is not entirely without merit but a much better script was required here, 6/10.

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. I am a big fan of the Harry Potter films which have been getting better and better. This book was always going to be a hard one to do as it is much more open ended that the rest. It is also a much darker story that the previous ones. In the fourth and fifth films the filmmakers worked to make them a bit darker and more grown up. In this one they actually work to make the film more enjoyable the darkness comes by itself. The acting from the senior members, including a good performance from Jim Broadbent the newest cast member, down to the junior cast is very good. As with the others the film is long and moves at quite a pace to fit everything in. The mystifying moment in the film is when, despite all the scenes that they have had to cut from the book, there is a short and pointless action scene that would have made J.K. Rowling turn in her grave (wait a minute). The purpose of the scene presumably is to keep the audience from getting bored although the film is exciting enough, even without action until the end, that it doesn't need it. Nonetheless the film is funny and exciting and it is difficult to see how the source material could have been produced better, 8/10.

Films of 2009 so far

2009-06-07T05:19:00.000-07:00

It's been a long time since I last did this so I have a lot of catching up to do.

January.
Frost/Nixon. The story of a failing chat show host with little political knowledge attempts to resurrect his career by exacting one of the biggest political confessions of the century out of one of its most controversial political leaders. It is based on a stage play which is a good sign as it generally means that the film will be well written. The downside of this as in Doubt (see later) is that it tends to be a bit dialogue heavy. Frost/Nixon however keeps moving quickly enough that this is not noticeable and the result is a collection of little known but very good actors coming together weaving a web of intrigue and manipulation using each other for entirely self seeking ends. This is apart from Frost's political researchers who want to give Nixon the "trial he never had" on behalf of the American people. The film is mainly about Frost who is brilliantly portrayed by Michael Sheen who likes flamboyant parties and is very light hearted and gradually learns just how much is at stake and how much he is overmatched. 10/10
Australia. Baz Luhrmann's attempt to produce a wartime epic was treated unfairly but the critics. The film is split in two with no real link between the halves which is its real weakness. Also the way he attempts to reproduce a genre of film that is now antiquated and clashes with all the action and special effects used in the film was a waste of time. Having said that Baz Luhrmann is about about light-heartedness, romance fun. We get all this Baz Luhrmann (excepting Romeo and Juliet) makes films that are very enjoyable, Moulin Rouge's problem was the tragedy as it clashed with the enjoyment in the rest of the film. There are no such problems here. Not the greatest film but very enjoyable, 7/10.
Defiance. Ed Zwick takes on World War II. One of my favourite directors returns with a little known true story of 3 Belarusian Jewish brothers who protect hundreds of Jews during the war. Defiance is an interesting film telling a very compelling story. The three lead characters, particularly Daniel Craig, give strong performances but support is also very good. The weakness of this film is that it is very episodic and there is little overarching narrative making explaining the story very difficult. There is also little in terms of context ever explained so we never know at what stage of the war everything is taking place in. Still very good, 8/10
Slumdog Millionaire. Danny Boyle is very much attempting to be a modern day Kubrick making films in every genre. This, his take on Bollywood, comes across very well. The narrative structure of him explaining his life story to the police when he is being accused of cheating is very interesting. The story is very moving and the characters are well acted. Danny Boyle has always performed his best when dealing with darker topics and making the more harrowing, horrific, depressing films and his missteps have come when he has tried to make comedy. As a result this film goes very dark when narrating the plight of Indian orphans which, for me, was just too depressing for a film that was essentially a modern day fairy tail. Having said that that is the one problem in an otherwise excellent film, 9/10.
Milk. This film was all about Sean Penn, who produces a fantastic performance, and James Franco who is also very good. This film also suffers from a lack of real storyline and focuses on the personal life of Harvey Milk rather than his political struggle to the extent that when he is killed at the end you don't quite know why. The film leaves you with the impression that gay people are gay but you don't quite know how he fought or who he was fighting against half of the time. Time also passes at an inconsistent rate without you really knowing quite what happens in the meantime, 5/10.
Valkyrie. Alfred Hitchcock said that the secret to making a good film is a good script, a good script and a good script. This is what Valkyrie lacks. Bryan Singer's career has stalled recently due to the fact that he keeps making films with a poor script. This film brings together one of the best casts you are likely to see on screen but the main character is so badly written that Tom Cruise can't do much with it. Kenneth Branagh does a great job early on but disappears after the first 20 minutes which is a real loss. The film does hold tension quite well however and the ending is sad but there is no way of avoiding that and I actually wanted them to succeed which is something, 6/10.

February
The Spirit. Frank Miller makes the move from writing to directing and you can tell tha he is no film maker. The film is obviously in a set, the lighting and the contrast looks quite good but is clearly appealing to the comic book fans who are a small minority. The saving grace of the film is Samuel L. Jackson and Scarlett Johansson who play off each other very well. The film is very tongue ion cheek and the banter between the two villains is very enjoyable, 6/10.
Underworld: Rise of the Lycans. The first Underworld film was very good but the terrible second film meant that a prequel was the only way to keep the franchise going. Visually the film is fantastic but the storyline we have heard before in the first one and the writers clearly have not heard of the concept of characters, 3/10.
Bolt. The lesson that no one seems to have yet learned from Pixar and Shrek is that there is a positive correlation between jokes and success of animated films. Bolt sacrifices all its good characters and concepts after the first half hour for a friendship between a cat and a dog which gets boring after the first 5 seconds. The concept is not original and the first half hour results in making you wonder what the film would have been like if we had just watched the tv show he was a star of instead as it looked better, 6/10.
Doubt. Another film of a stage play designed entirely to win Oscars. Meryl Streep is brilliant but doing what she did in Devil Wears Prada and other films. There is nothing new in that performance. Philip Seymour Hoffmann is very good as is Amy Adams who plays innocence so well. Viola Davis is good but her 5 minutes on screen in my opinion do not merit the nominations she received for it. Still a good film, 7/10.
The Secret of Moonacre. Once again that thing about a good script. The story wasn't great, there was no excitement and there's only so much a good cast can do, 4/10.
Franklyn. These types of films with interlinking storylines can work very well if the storylines interlink correctly (e.g. Vantage Point). The problems with Franklyn are that the Eva Green storyline doesn't link with the rest her sole connection to the story is that she owns a flat, everything else that happens to her is coincidental and a distraction from the rest of the film. The other problem with Franklyn is that the superhero part of the film is too good. The imagery and characters are perfect and I would rather it had been real and I was watching this film rather than what had been actually made, 7/10.
The International. Conspiracy thrillers need 3 things, a conspiracy, thrills and a good idea, something original, a twist, something to make the film interesting. The international has enough of the first 2 to be watchable but nothing original or surprising to be actually interesting, 6/10

March
Watchmen. The most anticipated film of the year so far and one that I had been looking forward to. This is a film based on what is considered the best graphic novel of all time, however graphic novels still don't have that many fans in relation to the entire population. This means that when you make a film don't get a director who reveres the material too much to make necessary changes. Having read the graphic novel I can say that the sex scenes are not necessary and could benefit from the odd joke to break up its intensity. The film is directed by Zach Snyder who gained attention with his remake of Dawn of the Dead which, while packed with tension and frights, ultimately was one of the most depressing films ever made (according to Empire magazine) and he followed this up with 300 which looked fantastic but took itself too seriously and did not have quite the sense of fun that would have made it into a great film. As a consequence, while being well acted and visually fantastic, Watchmen is too violent, too serious and not as much fun as what may be one of the best trailers of all time made it look. 6/10.
The Damned United. Football films, and most sports films in general, have a tradition of not being very good and all having the same plot. This film, however is not really about football but about the characters of Brian Clough and Peter Taylor, both expertly acted by Michael Sheen and Timothy Spall. The film is about ambition and rivalry almost destroying Clough's career and friendship with Peter Taylor. The film is very good, Brian Clough the flawed hero who we warm to but is clearly very flawed and makes mistakes. The film is moving yet very funny in places and is very well acted all round, retaining a quintessentially British flavour, 8/10.
Duplicity. This film from Tony Gilroy, who gained critical acclaim for he incredibly overrated Michael Clayton, was clearly intended to be his Ocean's 11. The film is a tongue in cheek espionage crime thriller which is very entertaining to watch and has an interesting twist at the end. With some very over the top characters, [particularly Paul Giamatti|) the film is very entertaining. The two problems with the film is that it is not quite as slick cool or appealing as Ocean's 11 and also that Clive Owen can't do comedy he always comes across as too serious, can't handle the comedy lines and it is clear that the part was written for George Clooney. The film is still quite entertaining, 7/10.

April
The Boat That Rocked. Richard Curtis moving away from his traditional romantic comedy to explore his love of music written before I was born. This film is about a pirate radio station on a boat in the North sea and the no consequences lifestyle they live. The film has some very entertaining moments and is by and large well acted. However it represents the problem of post-modern filmmaking in that there are moments where amorality is clearly wrong but there are no consequences for it. Also despite Richard Curtis making a film about a vaguely at one time real issue he still feels free to make the government look evil and out of touch which just doesn't work, 5/10.
Monsters vs. Aliens. This film learns the lesson that Bolt didn't that comedy can cover a multitude of errors. This film makes reference to almost ever sci-fi film ever made, and goes at a very high jokes per minute ratio with the high points, particularly the dancing president, the result being that the kids have as much fun as the adults. The one problem with the film is that the romance that is there ends up not working. Monsters Inc., the Incredibles, Shreck, Wall-E and all the successful CGI films have their romantic moments this film doesn't and it is its one failing, 9/10.
In the Loop. To make a successful comedy you need more that one idea. In the Loop has one idea which is Peter Capaldi's foul mouthed spin doctor. The result is too much swearing, not enough wit, the film is either too scared or not allowed to make references to real politicians or mention Iraq (I couldn't work out which)and is now 6 years out of date on what it is talking about, 5/10.
State of Play. Good British Tv ideas tend to get messed up by lax morals and characters sleeping together distracting from the story. State of Play works because they cut all that out to focus on the actual story that works well. Good acting from both Russell Crowe and Ben Affleck and an intriguing twisting story make for a good film. The best part about the series was Bill Nighy's editor who is replaced by Helen Mirren who simply can't do it as well, bringing Nighy back would have made such a difference, 8/10.
Dragonball: Evolution. I went in with low expectations and they weren't met, 3/10.

May
Coraline. The Nightmare Before Christmas was credited to Tim Burton although Henry Selick actually directed it and I suspect that the film's success was as much to do with the talent of Selick as the talent of Burton (also explaining why the Corpse Bride wasn't as good). Coraline has the right ingredients of story, humour and characters. It does the right things, you like the right people and are scared of the right people. The problem with Coraline is the mixture, the funny characters aren't funny enough, they don't lighten the mood enough (and it definitely needs lightening) and the scary parts are too scary. Coraline suffers the same failing as the Nightmare Before Christmas in that it works better for adults than for children. Coraline is a children’s film but it too scary and there is too much tension, the failings are on the right side but a children's film that is not suitable for under 8s (at least) is a problem, 7/10.
Star Trek. Re-inventing the cultiest of cult programs for the 21st Century and the mainstream was a massive risk and not one that most people could have got away with. JJ Abrams, however, is an exception. The man who created Lost and made the monster movie into a sensation with Cloverfield understands the public psyche and what people want. Consequently Star Trek works. It manages to make Star Trek accessible to uninitiated while having references for fans, it balances adventure with comedy, actions with character development and most importantly is first and foremost entertainment. Consequently you leave the cinema having had a great time, 9/10.
X-Men Origins - Wolverine. The X-Men films never quite reached their potential, they wasted the characters rather than developing them. As a consequence this way of resurrecting the franchise might have worked. However, Wolverine not only fails to answer most of the questions (like why does he stop ageing when he becomes Hugh Jackman) and only uses the old film clichés (his brother is good, no bad , no good but the military are bad bad bad...sorry rant over). The film is quite well made but the script isn't up to scratch. The director was someone who I considered had the potential to make good films, Gavin Hood having already made Tsoti and Rendition. But he showed in this that he only knows how to make serious films and has no idea how to make a film enjoyable. As a consequence Wolverine is serious overbearing and not very good, 5/10.
Angels and Demons. The Da Vinci Code was so bad that normally I would consider there to be no point in making a sequel. However, Ron Howard is a great director and Tom Hanks can act when he puts his mind to it. So giving them a second chance to get it right I can understand. The film is a vast improvement. It helps that people have now realised that the material of Dan Brown contains no factual value. The Da Vinci Code tried to be serious claiming that its material was true and that detracted from the adventure of the film. This film knows that the idea is a load of tripe and has lots of Tom Hanks running about with a brief pause to blurt out meaningless drivel. However, this time they know that it is meaningless drivel and the actors are enjoying themselves. The film moves at a faster pace and as a result the film is very enjoyable. It falls foul of the Hollywood cliché that the actor you recognise is the bad guy but for all that the film is more interested in giving you an hour and a half of fun than convincing you that there really is a conspiracy to destroy the Vatican which is a breath of fresh air after the first one and makes for a much better film, 7/10.
June
Red Cliff. Chinese films, at least the ones that make it over here, have a habit of looking fantastic, being incredibly serious (or the jokes don't translate), being very long and having very poor storylines. Enter John Woo returning to directing a Chinese film. Consequently what we have is a film with no characters, only the vaguest pretence at a storyline and lots of fighting, in other words what John Woo normally does. The issue with Red Cliff is that it tries to have a story and characters, neither of which work, there is too much fighting and the film is so long that it drags, at an hour and a half I think I would have enjoyed it at two and a half I got bored, 6/10.
Night at the Museum 2. Why anyone ever thought this concept would work as a film I will never know. The first film was bad, this film improves but not enough. Ben Stiller seems to have made a career out of making vaguely funny films with celebrity pals stealing the show. This worked with Tropic Thunder but this time the celebrity pals aren't funny enough, the story doesn't have much to it and yes the films has its moments but by and large is very mediocre, 5/10.
Terminator: Salvation. What do you expect? This isn't going to be a serious, let’s explore characters film, all it was ever going to be was machine fights, special effects and visuals. The film has just enough of a plot to keep going although it is never very coherent. The action is good and there is a lot of it. The finale is exactly what a Terminator film should have (a human vs. robot fight in a factory) and the film has some laughs. The filmmakers try to have fun, the action sequences are a selection of shots from "my favourite war films shots" and there is some enjoyable dialogue including the line "I'll be back", great fun, 7/10.

Pete Awards

2009-06-07T04:59:00.000-07:00

The winners are:

Best Music:The Dark Knight
This was a close one as none of the scores this year were outstanding but this score did the job to crteate a superb atmosphere for the film.

Best Screenplay: Frost/Nixon
This was a hard one as a number of films were well written, the twist at the end of Eagle Eye amonst won me over but the superb Frost/Nixon gets it.

Best Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger - The Dark Knight
Another very competitive field but I cannot avoid jumping on the bandwagon as Heath Ledger was simply astounding in the role.

Best Supporting Actress: Amy Adams - Doubt
Not a great crop of performances this year but Amy Adams portrays innocence better than anyone in Hollywood and deserves recognition for hoding her own alongside Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffman.

Best Actor: Michael Sheen - Frost/Nixon
This one was so close I could have given it to any one on the list but Michael Sheen gave a brilliant portrayal of David Frost who as someone who is English and in their 20s I am more familiar with than Richard Nixon.

Best Actress: Christina Ricci - Speed Racer
Probably the best comedy actress in the world but gets little recognition. With little to do in the film she managed to give a great performance.

Best Director: Andrew Stanton - Wall-E
The director doesn't get enough recognition in animated films and Wall-E was successful in a large part due to superb directing.

Best Film: Frost/Nixon
A brilliant film. Just pipped Changeling, my film of 2008, at the post for best film. Slumdog millionaire, while good just had a few too many moments like the rape scene that it didn't need that just detracted from my enjoyment of it very slightly.

Awards

2009-02-17T14:11:00.000-08:00

It's approaching the end of the 2009 awards season so I thought I would give my own awards creatively entitled the Petes. There are 8 categories in the Petes, the nominations are as folows:
Best Film:
Changeling
Frost/Nixon
Slumdog Millionaire
Wall-E
Speed Racer

Best Director:
Ron Howard - Frost/Nixon
The Wachowski Brothers - Speed Racer
Sir Ridley Scott - Body of Lies
Andrew Stanton - Wall-E
Baz Luhrmann - Australia

Best Actress:
Angelina Jolie - Changeling
Meryl Streep - Doubt
Nicole Kidman - Australia
Christina Ricci - Speed Racer
Rebecca Hall - Frost/Nixon

Best Actor:
Michael Sheen - Frost/Nixon
Frank Langella - Frost Nixon
Sean Penn - Milk
Robert Downey Jr. - Tropic Thunder
Dev Patel - Slumdog Millionaire

Best Supporting Actress:
Amy Adams - Doubt
Georgie Henley - Prince Caspian
Gwyneth Paltrow - Iron Man
Alexa Davalos - Defiance
Kate Winslet - The Reader

Best Supporting Actor:
Heath Ledger - The Dark Knight
Tom Cruise - Tropic Thunder
Kenneth Branagh - Valkyrie
Matthew Macfayden - Frost/Nixon
Madhur Mittal - Slumdog Millionaire

Best Screenplay:
Speed Racer
Wall-E
Frost/Nixon
Eagle Eye
Changeling

Best Music:
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Changeling
The Dark Knight
Wall-E
Defiance

To sum up the nominations count is: Frost/Nixon 7, Changeling 4, Wall-E 4, Speed Racer 4, Slumdog Millionaire 3, Australia 2, Doubt 2, Tropic Thunder 2, The Dark Knight 2, Defiance 2, Eagle Eye 1, Body of Lies 1, Prince Caspian 1, Iron Man 1, Milk 1, The Reader 1, Valkyrie 1 and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button 1.

The Awards Announcement will be made just before the Oscars.

December Films

2009-01-08T09:48:00.000-08:00

Changeling. I was rather apprehensive about this film. I have not been a particular fan of Clint Eastwood as a director, not that his films are bad necessarily, but I have not thought that they are as good as they have been made out. Changeling, however, is different. The story is that a single mother (Angelina Jolie) comes home from work to discover that her son is missing. She informs the police who undertake a high profile search for her son and return to her a boy who is not her son. She complains at this and is not believed by the police to the extent that she is committed at one point to an asylum. The only person that believes her is the pastor of a Presbyterian church, played by John Malkovich, who has made it his mission in life to seek out injustice and defend those who cannot defend themselves. It is refreshing, especially as it is based on a true story, to see a film where the church is a good guy. The film paints a good representation of how the church should be acting in society. It is at times harrowing, heart warming and inspiring, with great performances from both Jolie and Malkovich who doesn't get nearly enough work. One of the best films of the year, 9/10.
Inkheart. I like fantasy films but most recent attempts have been very hit and miss. Aside from the Narnia and Harry Potter franchises (and obviously Lord of the Rings) the rest of the fantasy films have been uninspiring. Inkheart has the advantage, however, of an interesting cast with Brendan Fraser who is always entertaining, Paul Bettany a great actor with an impressive range and Jim Broadbent to name a few. The story is that there are people who read books and the characters in the book come out of the book into the real world and people in the real world have to go back into the book to replace them. Brendan Fraser is one of these people who reads the villain out of a fantasy book called Inkheart and his wife is taken into the book to replace him. The film tells the story of him trying to defeat the villain and get his wife back. There are 3 rules for this type of film, make it entertaining, make it entertaining and make it entertaining. This film does it well. There is humour, brilliant visuals and interesting characters. As entertaining family friendly films go you could do a lot worse, 7/10.
The Transporter 3. The first 2 Transporter films were stylish adrenaline fuelled thrillers with action sequences that defy the laws of physics and Jason Statham. The weaknesses of those 2 films were that they lacked plot and didn't always provide enough humour to grease the wheels. Having lost the director of the first 2, he went to direct the Incredible Hulk, the new director is not a step down. The story is that Jason Statham is kidnapped and forced to take a package across Europe with a girl to guide him. It turns out the girl has been kidnapped and she is the package. The plot then is once again weak but it allows for enough changing scenery and different characters to keep the film interesting. The film takes a more light hearted tone that the previous 2 allowing for maximum enjoyment and the result is a forgettable film that makes for a very enjoyable 90 minutes, 6/10.
The Day the Earth Stood Still. A remake/update of the 1950s film that I don't expect anyone has seen. The idea is that a representative of a group of alien planets comes to Earth to tell humans that their actions are destroying the planet and unless they change they will be annihilated. One of the most visually stunning films of the year with a strong cast and a simple message. The script struggles from not adequately investing in the main characters to make you care about them. Also to give the film more family appeal the main character has a child to take care of. The child succeeds only in being annoying and detracts from the story rather than adding to it. The film is also more concerned with the message than the story consequently nothing much actually happens. Nonetheless an enjoyable film, 6/10.
Tales of Despereaux. I was attracted to this film by a line in the trailer "there are lots of things in the world to be afraid of if you learn how scary they are." The story is a fairy tale about a land that lives and breathes for soup until one day the queen dies as a result of discovering a rat in her soup. Soup is henceforth banned and the land lives under a perpetual cloud and everyone is very depressed and a small mouse called Despereaux has to save the day. The film starts off with some humour and some absurd ideas that I could accept in the name of comedy, however, the film soon forgets about the comedy wanting to tell its complex but heart warming story. The result being that the film quite quickly gets boring. The story requires an element of comedy in the film to make it acceptable yet the script clearly wants to be serious and consequently the film fails to work as a whole, 4/10.
Madagascar 2. I disliked the first film on the basis that it forgot to make you laugh after the first half hour (excluding the penguins) and instead focused on its story which really wasn't very good. The second film once again starts well. The story is that the animals want to go back to their zoo in New York and the penguins fix a crashed plane to get them home. The plane runs out of petrol and crash lands in mainland Africa by some incredible quirk of fate right by where the lion was taken from as a cub. The film keeps up the laughs by introducing a number of new characters. Anyone who is above the age of 8 will have realised that Sacha Baron Cohen's lemur isn't funny but as the rest are it is ok. The film goes all out for laughs which is exactly spot on as the story which turns out to be the Lion King in a different wrapper is once again weak but is only used as an interlude between the laughs. The other weakness of the film is the voice talent. Ben Stiller and Chris Rock are innocuous at best in their roles. DreamWorks need to take a leaf from the Pixar book that well known actors don't always make a good voice cast. The Incredibles had an almost entirely unknown cast and it worked because the voices worked. These problems are only small but they are the difference between a good film and a great film. They are why Madagascar 2 is an enjoyable watch but is not competing with Pixar, 7/10.

Films: Review of the year, 2008

2008-12-03T05:11:00.001-08:00

As with every year the first two months of the cinematic calendar were taken up with the Oscar contending films. I was not a particular fan of any of them, No Country For Old Men was depressing and without incident, In the Valley of Elah was dull and not very interesting and There Will Be Blood had little actual story and I just didn't get it. If it was about something I couldn't tell what. Sweeney Todd was a bit too gothic and gory for its own good. The film didn't show enough interest in the romance of the 2 nice characters as it was too interested in its own tragedy and the Danny Elfman soundtrack didn't fit with the brilliant Sondheim songs. Still a better film than the others, however. After these Oscar films came the barren time of cinema where the studios have exhausted there supply of what they consider good films and there is a period where very little of interest comes out. The 2 highlights of this period were Vantage Point, a film that came out of the blue and did a good story with a Rashomon style narrative telling the story from a number of different perspectives that made for a very good film and Horton Hears a Who which, while child pleasing and with bright colours, was simple enjoyable and funny. These were balanced by the terrible 10 000 BC, I have always been a Roland Emmerich fan but in this film he basically remakes Stargate but rubbish. Then in May the summer blockbuster season started. This summer was the most congested yet in terms of numbers of big films. Film distributors have yet to work out that unlike the USA the schools in this country have exams in June that interfere with cinema watching but are still on holiday in August when their US counterparts have gone back to school and that they would probably be best served by holding back some films until the middle of August (where there is always a barren patch where no good films come out) to maximise returns rather than moving the blockbuster season earlier and earlier. As a result the very enjoyable Iron Man did well but the also very good, if too intelligent for mass media, The Incredible Hulk was buried under a pile of better advertised films. The same is true of my pick of the summer’s films, Speed Racer. I am a Wachowski brothers fan and this film has their strong script with a lot of story a lot of action a lot of humour and fitted together into a brilliant film. Both these films lost out to Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull which, while having some enjoyable scenes, had a diabolical story, an awful script and Steven Spielberg should be ashamed of himself. All of these were very much all age films but aimed at the teenage market. The summer had the strongest crop of family films I have seen for a number of years. Prince Caspian, while neglecting much of its source material, was a very exciting and enjoyable film with points that can still be drawn from it, Kung Fu Panda was funny and exciting and there was the charming spectacle that was Wall-E. Despite a few missteps (e.g. Cars) Pixar are adept at maintaining their own high standards and an amazingly likeable central character combined with a chillingly possible human future make it one of the highlights of the year. The summer was dominated, however, by The Dark Knight. This highly anticipated film surpasses its very good predecessor thanks to an amazing performance from the late Heath Ledger, a good story and some amazing visual effects. There were problems with the two face character and I never like it when the film's romantic interest is killed (apologies if you haven't seen it) but the film remains as a cinematic masterpiece. Of the films that came in the Dark Knight's shadow there are three worth mentioning. Get Smart was the first comic parody for a long time that was actually funny and made for a very enjoyable 1 1/2 hours, Star Wars: the Clone Wars, much maligned in the media for being unnecessary, was justified by the fact that it was better than the three recent prequels and Hellboy 2 was visually stunning and very enjoyable even if the almost complete lack of story let it down a bit. September and October (before half term) have never been big film watching months and this year that was reflected in the lack of anything interesting entering our cinemas (by our cinemas I of course mean the multinational corporations cinemas). The one highlight of this period was the enjoyable Tropic Thunder. Half Term brought two very good films in Eagle Eye and City of Ember which were enjoyable family friendly and gave me a better feeling upon leaving the cinema than anything this year that was put up for an Oscar. November was all about one film. Quantum of Solace was a good film, it doesn't make the step to a great film but was very far from disappointing. Soon after it came Body of Lies, an interesting thriller by the master of the genre Sir Ridley Scott which is the best so far of the post 9/11 Middle East thrillers. November finished with the release of the first of the contenders for the 2009 Oscars, Clint Eastwood's Changeling. It was an inspiring story, not the least because the church is represented as a good guy, good acting by both Angelina Jolie and John Malkovich which made for a very moving film. December saw a number of Christmas entertainment films including the entertaining Inkheart and also Madagascar 2 which was, refreshingly, a vast improvement on the first even if the lack of a convincing story became more obvious as a consequence. The best film of December was the visually stunning Day the Earth Stood Still with some good performances and a brilliantly sustained sense of threat throughout the film.

So, in review, my picks for outstanding films of 2008 are: Vantage Point, Speed Racer, Wall-e, Eagle Eye, City of Ember and Body of Lies but my award for the best film of 2008 is Changeling.

November Films

2008-12-01T09:37:00.000-08:00

Quantum of Solace. When the James Bond series started they followed on from each other rather than standing alone (for example Blofeld kills Bond's wife at the end of OHMSS and Diamonds are Forever with Bond hunting down Blofeld to take revenge for killing his wife) and this film does the same starting minutes after Casino Royale finished. The story of the film is that through Mr. White who is interrogated at the begining of the film an unknown criminal organisation is uncoverred and the clues leading to a man, Dominic Green, who is part of this crminal organisation who is hatching a sinister plot to seize resources in Bolivia. One of the problems with the film is that this is the entire plot. The film has slick exciting action sequences and Bond's character is well developed but simply not enough happens. Also the filmakers are still nervous to include the trappings of the old Bond such as the walk across the screen at the beginning, now at the end, and the theme tune is conspicuous by its absense. The film is very well acted, however, and a strongert plot could have seen it be on a level with the likes of Goldfinger, Goldeneye and now Casino Royale in the franchise, however in its current state it just doesn't quite get there, 7/10.
The Mutant Chronicles. I have a soft spot for they're so bad they're good films, however this isn't quite one of those. Rule number one of cinema (probably no. 27 due to the amount of rules no. 1 of cinema)if you call your film the mutant chronicles you cannot then take it seriously. This film does take itself seriously, however, which is a pity because visually the film is stunning. The film is set hundreds of years in the future, the Earth is ruled by 4 corporations that fight wars with each other for the world's remaining resources. The film opens with a WW1 style trench warfare battle in which an alien machine that has been on the planet for thousands of years in uncovered that starts turning mankind's dead and dying into mutants. The only people who know how to stop mankind fromm being wiped out is a group of monks who have been preparing for this for hundreds of years, cue gratuitous violence. Consequently the film is very depressing, it doesn't matter how much style you have in type of film if there isn't some tongue in cheek humour to grease the wheels and there isn't any, 4/10.
The Baader Meinhof Complex. This film telling the story of the notorious West German terrorist group in the late 1960s and early 1970s is an interesting story of how easy it is once you have started down a road of violence for it to overwhelm your principles. I cover this in another post but for all that the film is very well made and very well acted. At 2 1/2 hours it is overly long and half an hour could have been easily shaved off the start and is very far from an enjoyable film but a good film, 7/10.
Max Payne. Like with the Mutant Chronicles I have a soft spot for films of games if they are prepared to not take themselves too seriously, Doom was enjoyable for that one reason. Max Payne, however, seems so interested in following as rigidly to the game plot (I assume it's the game plot as there is no other reason for having it) as possible that it forgets to make the viewer want to watch it. The only parts of the film that are particularly entertaining are when he haluncinates Valkyrie which are Norse mythical creatures that are basically monsters with wings and I couldn't help wishing that he were fighting these instead of old white men, 3/10.
Body of Lies. Over the past 30 years Sir Ridley Scott has been consistently one of the best directors in Hollywood and is one of he most accomplished directors in history never to have won an Oscar. Body of Lies is his attempt at a film about Iraq. The film i about a CIA agent on the ground in the Middle East (Leonardo Di Caprio) trying to locate the leader of an offshoot of Al Qaeda and his boss (Russell Crowe) who is directing operations from the USA. There have been a number of films about Iraq and the Middle East of the past few years, the best of which was Lions for Lanmbs which appealed much more to the academic than the actions seeking. Body of lies attempts to do both, there is quite a lot of action but the film is about the story and the interaction between Di Caprio, Crowe and the head of Jordanian intelligence. The issue for this film was alkways going to be that because of the films about this sort of thing before, can this film do anything new and can it make its point and be a good film? In the most part the film is across between 2 of last year's films: Rendition (dir. Gavin Hood, 2007) and The Kingdom (dir. Peter Berg) both of which were mediocre films that sacrificed plot for controversy and made very modest box office takings as a result and have already been virtually forgotten. However, Sir Ridley Scott is one of the fathers of the modern blockbuster, he knows how to make a film watchable. The film has received a number of lukewarm reviews, for the most part because there is a lot of talking and also there are a number of characters in the film who exist solely for cinematic purposes like the nurse Di Caprio falls for. But these characters are what make the film enjoyable and the film makes its point well with a good plot twist at the very end which gave the film the ending it needed. The cast is strong, the visuals are good and the script works, 8/10.

Book Review: Jesus For President

2008-12-01T08:06:00.000-08:00

Although I don't tend to review too many books I thought this one was worth it.
Jesus For President: Politics For Ordinary Radicals by Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw, Zondervan, 2008
I haven't read Claiborne's previous book (yet), the successful "the Irresistible Revolution," but I gather it is very good. The book can be divided into 2 halves, the first half is about Jesus, the political statements he makes and the political environment he is speaking into and t second half is about America today and how as Christians we can enact the politics of Jesus today. So far so good. The first half is very well researched and written, although the authors go to excessive pains to say "Jesus is political, honest," I don't know who said he wasn't in the first place but it wasn't me. There isn't that much else I have to say about it other than it is very good and gave me a new and deeper understanding of some of Jesus statements. For example I did not know that when Jesus talked about the Kingdom of God the word, basilea, that he used was the same word as was used to refer to the Roman empire.
In the second half Claiborne and Haw talk about how, as Christians, we need to shape our lives around God's values in areas such as resisting climate change, in order to make an impact on the world. The problem with this part of the book is that neither Claiborne or Haw have some kind of qualification in politics (I do) and it shows. When they are working on the material that is clearly their strength (the word of God and I wish I have that kind of understanding of it) they are strong but when they move off it they are unable to keep a politically neutral attitude as they discuss the big issues. By this i do not mean that they are biased towards a particular political party, they clearly dislike them both, but they have formed a collection of political thoughts that they argue without thought for counter arguments or a sense of balance. That means that there are occasions when they say that Christians should be living a certain way the implication is that if you are not you are sinning. One of the aims of the book is to convict the church which in my opinion needs convicting on these issues but the problem is that the Holy Spirit convicts out of love but when men convict it isn't always and that comes through. I was also displeased with a few times where they seemed to advocate practises against the teaching of Jesus, and once again their failure to balance their arguments meant that my questions were never answered. For example there is a part of the book where they talk about taxes and they mention when Jesus is asked whether the people should pay taxes to Caesar or not and Jesus says "give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." They then follow this statement by suggesting that instead of paying all my taxes I could pay the proportion of my taxes that pay for education and social security etc. and give the proportion that would have been spent on the military to charity. This is not what Jesus meant in that scripture and in my opinion Claiborne and Haw's political opinions were taking priority over the word of Jesus at this point.
I am aware that I have been very negative in this review so far. I did so because it is very easy to be persuaded by the book and put it down having absorbed all of their political opinions where the reader should be questioning all their statements and coming to their own opinions on these issues. However it is good that there is a book that engages with the big issues and that makes people think about them. Politics tends to be somewhat of a taboo in the church as some people turn off when politics is mentioned and partly because there is an unspoken rule that people keep secret who they vote for, where their political allegiance is and consequently there is never any political debate in the church. I think that political dialogue needs to be stepped up in the church. I don't believe that Jesus wants the church to support a political party but I believe that he does want the church to start telling the government to stop thinking about ID cards and start thinking about all the people whose houses are being repossessed, who can't afford a Christmas this year.
In conclusion, the book is written by Americans, for Americans so there are many points, particularly about Iraq, that do not apply as much to the British reader. The same goes for the points where they talk about being "green" and say in Philadelphia we run our cars on vegetable oil. Living several thousand miles away from Philadelphia and having no means in Sheffield to run my car on vegetable oil I, and I expect most people who read the book, can't even if they want to. While the book is far from perfect the theology of the book is very strong and certainly worth a read, 7/10.

Violence and Our Attitudes to War

2008-11-28T05:42:00.000-08:00

Recently I saw the film "The Baader Meinhof Complex," which is a very dark and depressing based on the true story of the 1970s revolutionary terrorist group. There are some very interesting points to draw from the film on the subject of war and violence. The Baader Meinhof group was a group that fought against what they termed "American Imperialism" and they attacked American targets in West Germany with various demands including the USA ceasing military operations in Vietnam. The one rule of this group, as it was very influenced by the ideas of Marx, Mao Tse-Tung and Che Guevara, was that its attacks were not against the German people. However, after a series of attacks on American military bases the leaders of the group are captured and imprisoned. Their example inspires many others to join the cause and these new members of the group plan a number of attacks and kidnappings to force the government to release the captives. These attacks get increasingly violent until finally they enlist the help of an Arab terrorist group who capture a plane full of innocent people for them. This completely breaks the rule of not attacking the people. The group fought for a cause, that I had a certain amount of sympathy for, but they decided that their best hope was in violence. As the film unfolds it shows that as they sowed violence they reaped violence. An as they sowed violence they reaped much more that did not obey rules or discriminate against innocent or guilty. This is a principle that we can see today. Fighting hate with hate never inspires love. In both Afghanistan and Iraq the West has approached the "terrorists" with an attitude of hate, the precise tactics being let's kill them all. We are fighting the enemy with his weapons and are then surprised that we are losing. Humans are very impressionable, we are made like this so we can take the impression of our Creator Father, if you surround an English speaker with lots of French speakers over time they will learn to speak French. If you surround the people of Iraq with hate they will start hating. In their book "Jesus For President" Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw tell the story of an American soldier who shot an Iraqi man who was shooting at him. A young boy came out of a nearby house, picked up his father's gun and started shooting at the soldiers, they shot the boy too. This is not a problem that men can solve. In the West we have just about worked out that the war in Iraq is bad but I do not think we in the West have yet grasped just what kind of a problem we have caused in Iraq. There still seems to be this idea that if we go home and leave the Iraqis to their fate that the problem wil sort itself out or if not at least it will be, in the words of Futurama, "a tragic, BUT FAR AWAY, problem." Unfortunately I believe that God will hold us to account for our actions in Iraq until we attempt to reconcile ourselves to all the people we have hurt in the country and repent of our actions. The church in the West needs to pray for and support the church in Iraq as it is the only hope Iraq has left.

October's Films

2008-11-24T08:00:00.001-08:00

I try to keep up what has been out recently so here is my review of cinema in general through October.
Righteous Kill. It has been a long time since Robert De Niro has done a strong performance in a serious film and Al Pacino is just not getting the parts anymore. Neither of them have showed a great capacity for versatility either. However with Righteous Kill we have a gritty cop drama (which we know both De Niro and Pacino can do) and what’s more we have them together. What is unique about this film is they spend most of the film on screen at the same time. In the Godfather Part II they were not in the same scenes and in Heat they only had about 2 scenes together. So there was some potential to this film. However, the problem was the script. The dialogue was slow and gave the actors no room to work, the twist at the end was very predictable and there was only character in the film that was ever developed as the writer quite clearly didn’t care about anyone else. Neither Pacino nor De Niro are bad but they have no material with which to be good. 3/10 would be generous.
Eagle Eye. It’s quite hard to talk about this film without giving its central premise away but I will try. What we have in Eagle Eye is a special effects blockbuster reminiscent of Transformers. The objective of this type of film is enjoyment, pure and simple. When I went into Eagle Eye I did not expect Citizen Kane, I expected, or rather wanted anyway, a fast paced action thriller which kept me on the edge of my seat and gave me the feeling of having had a good time upon leaving the cinema. This I got and more. The film is well directed and well acted. It is fast paced, while there is a lot of action to over burden you, admittedly it takes a lot of action to overburden me, and there are a few laughs on the way to grease the wheels. The central premise of the film, which I can’t say, is quite clever and makes an interesting (and quite edgy) political point. Easily 8/10.
Death Race. Yes I went to see it. It’s called Death Race and that’s what it is. Predictable, not particularly clever but retains enough (only just) style and excitement to be watchable. 6/10
Tropic Thunder. Probably September but nonetheless… The premise of the film, a group of actors filming a war film straying into an actual war zone, is quite good. The cast is mostly strong with cameos from half of Hollywood. The film starts strongly with trailers for some of the characters previous films which are hilarious (especially Downey Jr.s). The plot makes enough sense, the jokes are mostly funny and the Tom Cruise cameo in the second half steals the show. The weaknesses of the film, which there are unfortunately, are: the film is more violent than it needs to be which distracts from the comedy, the Jack Back character is badly written and so consequently makes little sense and isn’t funny, the token black guy is so token he has few lines and even fewer jokes and Ben Stiller spends his time being Ben Stiller and doing what Ben Stiller does in every film he is in, having said that he is on occasion quite funny. Robert Downey Jr. is very good indeed and even Matthew McConaughey produces a strong cameo. Nevertheless a good film 7/10.
City of Ember. At last a believable post apocalyptic setting. One of the main assumptions of post apocalyptic films is that it is assumed that you will forgive the fact that never in a million, maybe more, years will the world ever be like this (The Matrix excluded). City of Ember, however, isn’t. The main premise of the film is that an unknown disaster occurs, I liked the fact that you do no know what happened, although it could be inferred to be nuclear war, and a group of scientists get together and build a settlement deep underground where a group of citizens can survive. The instructions to escape are put inside a box that is given the mayor of the city who is entrusted to hand it down to his successor as mayor for 200 years when the box is programmed to open. 200 years later the box has been lost and is in the cupboard of a teenage girl. The City that is called Ember is a small town out of the 1900s they re use everything, they have a small amount of tinned food but most of it they grow in greenhouses that have electric light. The city is powered by a generator that is breaking. All the citizens choose their job out of a hat and the city is governed but a corrupt mayor played by Bill Murray. The city is dying after 200 years and everyone is afraid to try and leave. The teenage girl, played very well by Saoise Ronan, finds the box and together with this boy she meets tries to find the way out. The film is well directed and well acted. The film made me laugh, made me cry, was visually beautiful and throughout it all had a sense of childlike innocence that we need more of. The few weaknesses of the film are that Bill Murray cannot play a bad guy, corrupt and decadent yes, but he can’t do bad. Also there I a mutant mole running about in the bowels of the city for no apparent reason but aside from these minor flaws a brilliant film 9/10.
Igor. A brilliant premise of a world of mad scientists, each with their own assistant called Igor, paid by the world not to release their inventions on them. The main character, an Igor, has created 2 inventions, a suicidal bunny who cannot die and a brain in a jar which has no intelligence. After his master dies in an experiment the Igor decides that he can build an experiment using his master’s identity. He creates life in a Bride of Frankensteinesque (it’s a word honest) way. The problem is that his monster, instead of being evil wants to play the lead in Annie. Sounds good doesn’t it. However, this is the entire film. These are all the jokes in the film that are repeated ad nauseam throughout. Despite the world it is set in the film tries to be pink and fluffy where it should have had an Addams family morbidity. The script lacks a quality that the likes of Shrek and Pixar thrive upon. The film simply doesn’t live up to its potential. 6/10
Notable absentees:
How to Lose Friends and Alienate People. Comedy is meant to make you laugh not cringe. I did not laugh at all in the trailer and saw nothing about the film to make me want to watch it. Simon Pegg should spend his time writing his own films, which he is very good at, rather than starring in films like this, I may forgive him being in Star Trek.
Brideshead Revisited. Too far down the list, didn’t have time.
The House Bunny. I do still have some self respect.
Bangkok Dangerous. Not going to lose sleep over missing this.
Ghost Town. It just looked like an excuse for Ricky Gervais to get on the big screen for 2 hours rather than a genuine attempt at cinema.
Anything else. What do you think I live in a cinema and am made of money. It’s an understandable mistake to make but is sadly not true.

Three Stories

2008-11-24T06:42:00.000-08:00

The first story I want to tell is the story of the 1959 film “The Mouse That Roared.” It is a British film starring Peter Sellars playing most of the characters. The film is set in the world's smallest (fictional) nation, the Duchy of Grand Fenwick. The main export of this country is wine and when their wine becomes undercut but a Californian copy the nation is faced with bankruptcy. The Duchy decides to declare war on the United States, with the idea that it will certainly lose and will then be magnificently rehabilitated by the generous, victorious Americans. They then send 20 soldiers in chain main with bows and arrows to invade the USA. In New York, an air-raid exercise has closed the entire city, with the exception of the laboratory at the New York Institute of Physics, where a professor and his daughter are working on the new Q-bomb. When the Fenwickians arrive they look around New York but can find no one to surrender to as anyone they see think they are “men from Mars” due to their shiny mail. They eventually find their way to the Institute of Physics and gain control of the Q bomb. At which point the Americans surrender to the Duchy of Grand Fenwick. The upshot of everything is that the Americans discontinue the Californian wine and the Duchy of Grand Fenwick disarms the Q bomb which turns out to be a dud all along. The absurdity of the film and the underlying message of nuclear disarmament aside (for the moment) in the simple events of the film we have what could be described as the “normal Christian life.” The smallest, most unlikely country to ever win a war against the greatest military power on Earth does. With Jesus all things are possible. So what happens when things don’t quite work like that?
My second story is from the Argentinean revival. There were a group of pastors who were travelling around Argentina spreading the word of God. They received a message from a group of Satanists who were praying against them warning that if they came to their town they would be killed. This group of pastors decided to go anyway. On the way their bus crashed and they were all killed. Why this happened I do not, and never shall until I get to heaven and can ask (if I still care by then). I tell this story for one reason, even these people who were seeing loads of people come to the Lord and seeing revival in their land didn’t always win. There will be trials, there will be pain, God does not want us to always win against the odds.
The third story is from the book of Jeremiah. The second half of the book of Jeremiah recounts the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians. At this point God has sent a number of prophets to the various kings of Judah telling them to repent warning that if they didn’t the kingdom would fall but mostly they didn’t so, as prophesied the Babylonians turned up to defeat them. The Babylonians besieged Jerusalem and God told Jeremiah who was inside to tell the people to lay down their weapons as they were going to lose, not the most heroic of attitudes. As telling everyone they were going to be defeated is not a wartime attitude that Churchill would have been proud of Jeremiah was locked up. When the king realised he was going to lose he went to Jeremiah to ask him what God’s will was, hoping that God was going to deliver a victory. Jeremiah told him, however, that God had given the victory to the enemy and his only hope was to surrender but that if he surrendered God would protect him. I was Babylonian custom to humiliate their enemies when they were defeated so that no one would dare to stand against them. Jeremiah told the king that if he surrendered God would influence the king of Babylon so that he would not harm the king or his family and that they would be left in Jerusalem rather than be taken back to Babylon and that he would be given favour with the man appointed to preside over the region. The king did not believe and refused to surrender. When Jerusalem finally fell he was caught trying to escape. His family was killed in front of him, his eyes were put out and he was taken to Babylon where he ate at the kings table so everyone could see what the king of Babylon did to those who defied him. Was it God’s will? No. Could he have got out of it? Yes. Was it God’s will for his people, the Israelites to win? No. This is the challenge to God’s people in the face of violence in modern day culture. Understanding that God has won the final victory but in many battles it is not always his will for the good (or the slightly less bad) guys to win. How do we bring God’s peace into these situations? This is the challenge that intend to explore in the future, how do we God’s peace rather than mans peace in the conflicts of today?