Black Swan

Ballerinas? They’re pink and fluffy, or posh and prissy. The big macho “The Fighter” has just come out and that’s got a real sport in it, with actors who have beefed up especially. Let the girls have their silly little dance film. It’ll be a sports-movie for girls. Like Bring it On.

You might be mistaken into thinking the above, particularly if your brain is very small and your name is something like Gray. But The Black Swan is so far removed from both a girls’ “The Fighter”, or any sports-genre flick you can think of. It isn’t one ballerina’s struggle to do the perfect twirly thing (I know nothing of ballet but conceal it well). It’s a dark psychological horror. With dancing. Fun!

Director Darren Aronofsky, doing the whole fighting thing with The Wrestler in 2008, trips back to his trippy roots of Requiem and The Fountain for this piece, bringing surreal and graphic images to screen, twisting reality and tightening the drama. Natalie Portman plays Nina, a perfectionist and a prude, who is cast as the central character in Swan Lake. Nina’s task is to embody two roles – one the delicate white swan (which she is made for) and the other a dark and dangerous black swan. Unfortunately Nina’s attempts to transform into the dark side slowly crumble her mind.

Portman is outstanding, and deserves just as much credit as the fighting boys for her physical work, doing ballet training for a year, dropping 20lbs from her already slender frame and sustaining a rib injury during filming. It all pays off, as she is entirely believable as a ballet dancer, her grace and poise beautiful to watch. She also brings great fragility to the role and mixes it with her disintegrating sanity. Her Oscar nomination is rightly so, and I would applaud a win next month.

Aronofsky’s direction is dizzying at times, cameramen twirling among the dancers and flicking past full-length mirrors in “hang on, how’d he..?” moments. And when things get dark, they get really dark – flashes of horror and explicit violence shock among all the plumage, and the whole film leaves you somewhat shaken. There are a few moments that raise a wry eyebrow. Graphic lady-loving, though adding to the seeping darkness in Nina’s mind, is perhaps a tad unnecessary in places and starts to feel a little exploitative. But in all this is a powerful film, with some striking direction and a fantastic cast.

A tense psychological drama wrapped up in the slender and punishing world of ballet makes for a visually exciting experience. Don’t watch too close to bedtime, and if you had hopes of becoming a world-class ballerina this might just put you off. Black Swan nails a CF3.

127 Hours

Let’s face it, a film that involves one man, largely set in a single small location, with a known outcome that isn’t massively pleasant, does not make the most desirable of pitches. But golden boy Danny Boyle, glowing with over-heaped praise for Slumdog, brings the story of one man’s self discovery (hey, that’s what the inside of my arm looks like!) into must-see territory.

You know the story. Man’s arm trapped under rock. 127 long hours later man escapes. Arm does not. But Boyle plays with your expectations and tweaks the tension, creeping towards the bits you’re waiting for with nervous anticipation and throwing a few extras in to make the journey fresh. Though you’re waiting on the big separation, the rest of the 127 hours highlights the other issues poor Aron Ralston has to deal with; hunger, thirst, temperature, a loss of hope.

I say “poor Aron”, but the film doesn’t shy away from the fact that Aron is a cocky, selfish, egotistical little numbskull who thrives off ridiculous thrills and gurns for his camera at any opportunity. One of those people you went to uni with who end up going off round the world on a whim with no real life-plan, and has crazy adventures that they broadcast on a blog while you sit in a drizzly office silently hating the bastard before descending into a sea of self-pity at how uninteresting and pointless your own life is. You know – “one of those”.

Anyway, Aron himself has admitted he was a bit of a knobhead (probably) and James Franco plays it to perfection. Someone you can believably hate but at the same time, once that panic has kicked in as arm meets rock, someone you can sort of care for. There’s plenty of time to think about getting yourself into the same situation and the sheer horror of it all, and more “how far would you go?” questions than you’d probably anticipate.

At a trim 94 minutes this isn’t an epic character study, but Boyle doesn’t need to pad it out. There are some smart explorations into Aron’s psyche (a talk show being a particular highlight) and accepting your fate scenes on a par with the incinerator moment in Toy Story 3 (still haunts me). Though you’d go for the money shots – and they are brutally but stylishly handled – 127 Hours packs a strong emotional punch too. Who knew a film about a guy cutting off his arm could nearly make me cry?

The combination of a raw performance from Franco and Boyle’s typical frenetic direction with a killer soundtrack makes a bold, emotional and squirm-inducing film. Even if arm innards aren’t your cup of tea, it’s still worthy of a watch - you’ll only miss a couple of minutes if you choose to hide your eyes. 127 Hours grips and doesn’t let go, and as such pulls out a CF2.

The Next Three Days

For some reason the title of this film stuck in my head as 3 Days Later, so it was with surprise that I found it was not a prequel to the Danny Boyle zombie horror. The Next Three Days is another offering from Paul Haggis, the man who brought Crash to the Oscars back in 2005 (a film reviewed as “Yes, racism, very good. But too polished to be truly affecting” by a very young Cinemafool).

Haggis is better known for his writing, sitting behind Million Dollar Baby and the two Bond re-brands, and given the weighty nature of his portfolio it seems that Three Days is his version of a mini-break. Everyman Russell Crowe has the perfect family – hot wife with a top career and tiny big-eyed child who generally keeps quiet. Perfect. But when wifey (Elizabeth Banks) gets arrested for murder and sent to jail indefinitely, poor old Russell’s world is turned upside down. And, as all beardy college teachers would do, he decides to break his wife out of jail.

Now, this has the potential to be utter faecal matter. Crowe’s character has none of the pre-requisite skills for such an endeavour. So his transformation into jail-breaking superman could stink of, well, poo. But Haggis handles it smartly. Firstly by pumping up the pace to such a degree, you barely get chance to say “hang on…?” Secondly by casting Crowe, whose acting chops lend weight to his character’s emotional stew making him appear human, not a shallow action cut-out. Thirdly, though Haggis bends reality he still clings to it with amusing persistence. How does Crowe learn the majority of his anti-jail skills? Youtube and google of course. A neat trick would have been to have him sit down and watch the first series of Prison Break, but maybe they didn’t have the rights…

Anyway, the pumped pace makes for an exhilarating film, with Crowe building a character you can genuinely care about and Haggis sticking him in situations that you can almost, sort of, believe. Plus he does hi-jinks while driving a Prius, which is always fun to watch. There’s a slight lag mid-way through when clichéd detectives are wheeled out, and the lack of time spent with imprisoned wifey means her no doubt harrowing experience – way worse than hubby out in the real world in his comfy house – is inconsequential as she becomes just a woman waiting to be rescued.

You can’t help but wish for a braver ending to give the film a more dramatic punch, but overall The Next Three Days is a fun and thrilling journey that doesn’t make you roll your eyes. Granted, if you had time to stop and really think about the plot it would no doubt turn out to be utterly unbelievable nonsense. But hats off to Haggis for burying that point in exciting chases. Three Days makes for an entertaining watch, and so gets the recommended CF0.

What happened to 2010...

Yeah yeah yeah, no reviews since April, no review of the year. Yada-ya. What are you going to do? Stop paying me? Exactly.

In brief - best film of 2010? Toy Story 3.

I saw others. They were good too.

That's the door shut on 2010. Sorry.

1st April 2010 - Kick Ass

Critics are knocking each other over to flout how much they like this film, probably in order to show how cool and in touch with modern culture they are by not being offended at a little girl who swears and kills people. Not like anyone stuffy enough to dislike the film. They’re losers. We’re not. Love us.

Trouble is, the build-up of media Lick-Ass can only end up triggering an “it’s not that good” backlash sooner or later. Which will be a shame as this is a fun film, with the smart premise of a superhero story set in the real world. Average teenage comic-fan Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson) buys a crap suit and some sticks, and sets out to be Kick Ass. His only skill is a plucky determination. He gets beaten up quite a lot.

Stealing the show is the kid making all the critics quiver, little Hit Girl (an outstanding Chloe Mortez), the 12 year-old brought up by her bonkers daddy to be a lean, teeny killing machine. Said daddy became the highlight, played by Nicolas Cage channeling Adam West in a crap Batman suit. He is absurdity and hilarity rolled into one, with some gigantic teeth and a silly hair do. There are many componenets here that could create utter dirge along the lines of Daredevil or Batman & Robin, but Kick Ass has the right mix of tongue-in-cheek and seriousness to pull it off.

Nerd comedy (ala Superbad) mixes with uber violence (ala Kill Bill – well, all the films Kill Bill riffs off), with big nods to Raimi’s Spider-man and comic book name-checks sprinkled throughout. Superhero conventions are played to, then deliberately broken, leaving you with a fresh feeling of not really knowing what’s going to happen next. A slice of real darkness adds jeaopardy to the proceedings, and Mark Strong brings a fun villain in the form of a mob boss, with a wimpy son played by Christopher Mintz-Plasse (no doubt now type-cast as McLovin’ for the rest of his career).

But Kick Ass sometimes has a whiff of familiarity, be it through the soundtrack (an odd choice to reuse a 28 Days Later track for a blistering fight scene, making it feel more wannabe than fresh newcomer), the uber violent school girl (Gogo Yubari wearing the same tartan skirt in Kill Bill) or the general nods to the superhero franchises that have already dominated our screens, some pretty damn successfully. Whether they’re deliberate or not, these feelings of de ja vu hamper the film’s efforts to find a unique voice. It’s a shame the spirit of originality doesn’t cover all bases.

Still, Kick Ass is a lively, surprising, funny and enjoyable film - a welcome breath of fun after the seriousness of Watchmen and Dark Knight. Whether the freshness will last for a sequel (no doubt in the works) is another story. Nic Cage makes this film worth the watch, Chloe Mortez a close second for dazzling confidence. Kick Ass scores a CF2, kicking 2010 ass with the highest score so far.

The 2010 catch up

Ok, Ok. My head is hung in shame at the actions so far of 2010. Mainly because there have been no actions. We’re on week 14 and I’ve only seen 7 films. That’s 50% effort, and what’s worse I haven’t even posted reviews. Just think of the dozens of people out there with no Cinemafool guidance, stumbling into films with no idea of their CF rating. The pressure of such responsbility is almost too much to bear. But give me some slack, Cinemafool has existed for 4 years now. I needed a break.

Break over.

Ok, 5 of those 7 pesky films shall be summed up for your perusal in a series of minifools, mainly because I saw them so long ago my aged brain can't remember enough detail to fill a review. Here they are:

Sherlock Holmes

As I’ve already said: RDJ is predictably enjoyable playing himself with an English accent, the direction is predictably Ritchie with a lot more money. Film is fun, got a bit sleepy in the middle, and not quite the excitement the trailers promised. Ok, though. Just Ok.

Can’t say much more than that, really. CF0.

The Road

A heart-warming family drama....

Putting the “eak” in “bleak”, this takes Cormac McCarthy’s post apocalyptic tale of grim survival and transfers it to screen in all its distressing glory. Viggo Mortenson is obviously brilliant, and the only side-steps from the book are almost gratefully received, as to stick too closely to the details would no doubt elicit mass suicide. Not exactly a breeze to watch, but gripping, moving and everything it means to be. CF1, and no higher only because it loses the rewatch factor due to being crushingly horrible to absorb.

Solomon Kane

What could have been a snowy swordy epic is more of a damp rag as James Purefoy mooches around behind floppy hair, rarely takes off his clothes and signs up to a no-violence lifestyle after the devil tries to claim his soul. When the gloves do come off (“I will not fight you, I... oh Ok, hi-ya!”) the heads come off too and there are some fun slice and dice moments. But clunky editing and taking itself too seriously hamper any chance of overcoming the sizeable problems of trying to do sword fights and mystic monster stuff when numerous films have already done it much much better. A disappointing CF-1.


Alice in Wonderland

Like Blackpool illuminations, the magic of what appears to be a visual feast is quickly quashed once you peer past the distracting lights and see it for what it really is. Burton delivers another spectacle that deserves praise for style and technique, but flops at the important stuff like depth or heart. Depp’s flamboyance is fun, but expected. Despite all the giant heads and talking mice, Burton manages to do nothing surprising with the material. And the addition of 3D adds another headache in what is becoming quite an irritating new trend. Points for visuals only, this sits at a CF0.



Green Zone

Greengrass and Damon put Bourne into Iraq, marching around after those illustrious WMDs and generally causing trouble. Except, it’s not really Bourne of course, just a looky-likey and figurehead for a statement film. Damon is solid but a bit inconsequential, the action is fast and furious and the plot is worryingly plausible. Some exciting chases aside, the fact I can’t remember much more about the film suggests its impact is somewhat insubstantial. As such, Green Zone gets CF0.

2nd Jan 2010 - Sherlock Holmes

Minifool

RDJ is predictably enjoyable playing himself with an English accent, the direction is predictably Ritchie with a lot more money. Film is fun, got a bit sleepy in the middle, and not quite the excitement the trailers promised. Ok, though. Just Ok.

Introducing Minifool

Last year there was an unacceptable delay between watching a film and posting a review. I admit it. This year there might still be such a delay, but at least there now will be Minifool, your quick paragraph review to keep you going until the real thing comes along.

I don't think it needs any more explanation than that. If you think it does, you're obviously too stupid to be reading this site, and you should probably leave now.

Thanks

The Cinemafool review of 2009

First, an apology. Cinemafool has been running now for three years and always prides itself on seeing a new film at the cinema pretty much every week, then delivering a stunning review. Recently, due to personal movements (not bowel), it has become more difficult for Cinemafool to visit the cinema as often as desired. And so the year has seen a shocking lack of new films at the cinema – only 40 - and an even more shocking delay for reviews. For this poor performance I can only apologise. But what are you going to do? How about pay me and I’ll make more of an effort. Otherwise you’ll just have to make do with what you get.

Anyway, 2009 has been a year. Indeed. And the best way to celebrate that year is by the now famous Cinemafool review. First up, the anticipated top ten of 2009. Here they are, in chronological order:

Top Ten

1. Doubt

Rating: CF2

What: Fiddler or no fiddler? Priest vs Nuns. A couple of alternative titles also summing up the film.

I said then: a fully enjoyable film, with superb performances and a simple yet completely effective plot.

I say now: Big weighty paedo films never come so entertaining. Way more enjoyable than you’d at first think, Doubt is a rare stage-to-screen adap that works.

I also said: an altar boy’s holy vestibule.

2. Watchmen

Rating: CF3

What: “The best graphic novel ever” made into “the best graphic novel film adaptation ever”.

I said then: a mature and complex plot, twisted and intriguing characters, wowing visual punch and a kick-ass soundtrack

I say now: Proving there is still life in the stylised comic book genre, this was both mature and oh so very cool.

I also said: a big glowing blue-man’s schlong

3. Religulous

Rating: CF3

What: Bill Maher tackles the insanity of religion in a compelling documentary.

I said then: makes you wish this film was made available to a wider audience rather than a small cinema screen full of guffawing pretentioles like me.

I say now: as the athiests start to gather forces in billboard, buses and books, this is the documentary that is both oh so very relevant, but also very, very amusing.

I also said: interviewing mentals for laughs

4. Let the Right One In

Rating: CF3

What: Children, vampires, Sweden. What more do you need?

I said then: captivating, beautiful and slightly disconcerting.

I say now: An icy overcoat covering a warm heart, this is a welcome take on the now overblown Vampire genre.

I also said: how I imagine Angel rip-off Twilight to be, if the characters were 12 year old Swedish kids

5. In the Loop

Rating: CF2

What: Armando Iannucci’s cutting tv show turned to the big screen, joined by American friends.

I said then: In the Loop is a proud example of Britain’s writing talent, and a withering reminder of how crap politics can be

I say now: The dialogue is so swift and so delicious you’ll need to see this more than once just to gather all the barbs. Ace stuff.

I also said: the best angry-breathing ever.

6. Star Trek

Rating: CF3

What: A genre that’s usually partly ace and partly tosh, given a J J Abrams makeover.

I said then: Abrams blasts the Trek into the realms of the popular, making a show that many shy away from or turn their noses up at into something any uninitiated Trekster can actually enjoy.

I say now: Something for the fans and a fun trip for everyone else, Abrams proved there was still a lot of life in the Trek.

I also said: A bit like the Jonas Brothers.

7. Moon

Rating: CF3

What: Bowie Junior directs a sci-fi indie, pretty much a one-man show too. Sort of.

I said then: a charming little film, beautifully handled by Jones and superbly acted by Rockwell.

I say now: If you’ve still not seen this, avoid other reviews that spoil the plot and check it out. The understated sci-fi sister to boisterous Star Trek.

I also said: Cinemafool reviews are more considerate and, let’s face it, better.

8. Mesrine: parts 1 & 2

Rating: CF2 & CF1

What: A bit of a cheat to squish two films into one spot, but this French biog of a criminal superstar comes as a pair, and I couldn’t leave one out. It’d get jealous.

I said then: a lengthy study of a fascinating character… an absorbing, thrilling piece, made brilliant by Cassell’s performance

I say now: Vincent Cassell wows as uber crim Mesrine – stick this with your Goodfellas and Godfather collection.

I also said: autoglass would make a killing with the number of back windows shot out.

9. District 9

Rating: CF2

What: The sleeper hit that smashed the charts despite coming from a first-time director featuring unknown cast. Aliens penned into shanty towns in South Africa are given a crap deal by the government. Huh..

I said then: a sort of buddy-movie, mixed with Tsotsi, the alien-in-bar scenes from Star Wars, some first person shoot-em-up games and transformers.

I say now: The mix of traditional film with documentary and CCTV footage drags aliens into reality, and makes this an original little classic.

I also said: Fooking hell

10. Up

Rating: CF4

What: Pixar brings old man in a flying house via lots of balloons.

I said then: Funny, exciting, heart-warming – just beautifully enjoyable

I say now: The plot sounds stuffy and silly, but the film is both emotinally devastating and childishly silly, making it one of the most enjoyable of the year, and also the highest rated in 2009.

I also said: All they do is shuffle and pee

2009 – The Losers

Fewer films mean fewer miss-steps, but there were still a few stinkers to be found in front of Cinemafool’s eyes in 2009. Some are not necessarily bad films, but they either disappointed, befuddled or simply angered.

Bride Wars

Rating: CF-1

I said: “A plot so thinly constructed a five-year-old could predict what was going to happen (well, maybe not just any five-year-old, but perhaps myself at five, although I was unnaturally clever at that age of course).”

Synecdoche New York

Rating: CF0

I said: “I spent the last two hours watching something weird and meaningless. And if I wanted to do that I’d just watch Inland Empire again.”

“Like a jigsaw puzzle featuring baked beans – the only puzzle my mother has ever given up in her illustrious jigsaw career – there is being tricky enough to test you but cause enjoyment, and being so tricky that it just ends up left in pieces on the table.”

Public Enemies

Rating: CF-1

I said: “You’ve blown up the balloon to its maximum capacity and you’re about to release it, ready to be thrilled as it zooms across the room in a zigzag of fun chaos, complete with silly noises. Alas this was more like those times when you fumble the release and end up with a sputtering disappointment and some spittle in your face.”

Turkey of the year

Only one film stands out as truly shite this year, and it was its insistence of posing as something serious and decent that helped to land it this title, previously shared by Indiana Jones 4, Ocean’s Thirteen, and Pirates of the Caribbean Two, which I hear is now forcing out a fourth instalment like the big, festering turd it will most likely be.

Anyway, this year’s Turkey is:

The International

Rating: CF-2

I said: “it spiralled into a sea of who-cares, launching characters in willy nilly and churning the plot into indecipherable mulsh.”

“It is a mix of the talky bits in Bond that act as fillers between the fight scenes, and the bits in Bourne where they show shots of different European cities. The rest of the mix is filled with shit.”

End on a high

It wasn’t all crap, of course. The Oscar season brought out some pretty enjoyable stuff (Changeling, Slumdog), documentaries shone (Anvil), there was another good zombie comedy (Zombieland) and I got to see Hugh Jackman and Jason Statham on the big screen again, often with few clothes on (Wolverine, Crank 2).

Who knows how many films will be seen in 2010, and who knows if any will ever make a CF5 rating. There is, obviously, a pre-emptive CF-5 for Pirates 4. Can any film be worse? Let’s hope not. See you next year.

31st Dec 09 - Avatar

A few weeks ago I vented my stuffy air about not liking this new 3D technology in the cinema. And then this week there I sat with a pair of 3D specs, like a big hypocrite, waiting to see just what James Cameron has been up to for the last ten years and what all the fuss is about his new film Avatar. He’s trumpeted about the groundbreaking 3D technology so much I assumed it must be worth a go. And so I “oo-ed” and “ah-ed” as the screen leapt into life in front of me, depth added to landscapes and things flying out of the screen into my face. What isn’t advertised is the headaches, blurred vision and general annoyance as your brain attempts to adjust to the specs, my pathetic short-sighted handicap meaning I had the added problem of wearing 3D specs on top of normal specs, which when not properly lined up created a dizzying blurred 3D mess. I’m not making sweeping statements here, but James Cameron is obviously prejudiced against people who wear glasses.

Anyway, as well as 3D technology, Cameron has followed his passion for pushing the boundaries of effects. The Abyss saw the first computer generated silver wormy thing, Terminator 2 unleashed stunning effects on the T1000, subsequently used in Alex Mack (there’s progress for you), and Titanic brought in lots of little CGI people falling to their deaths. In Avatar, 60% of the film is computer generated using motion capture and photo-realistic technology. It does look pretty ace. The aliens – Navi – move and emote so smoothly that you begin to see them as just another set of actors, lead female Neytiri (voiced and motion captured by Star Trek’s Zoe Saldana) being the strongest and most enjoyable to watch. The landscapes are sometimes breathtakingly beautiful, and the critters are odd and deftly constructed. It all looks pretty damn good, really.

But here I am reviewing a film and not yet have I actually mentioned the film itself. For all the fancy visuals and teccy gizmos, a film has to stand on its own merits too. And Avatar… well, Cameron may have spent ten years on the effects, but he appears to have spent about ten minutes on the story. Namely, he watched Disney’s Pocahontas, then watched a BBC Wildlife documentary while inhaling sherbet. Bish bash bosh, there’s your story. The Navi are giant blue creatures with tails and weird tentacles that come out of their hair. But they also talk in African accents, have dreadlocks, a “chief” who wears feathers around his shoulders, a “witch-doctor” type person who has bones and stuff, and are “at one” with the earth and all the forest creatures. Take such blatant clichés, and the laziness increases when you add in more cooker-cutter human characters – the lanky geeky tech guy, the noble scientist, the corrupt company man after money, the insane army man after blood, and Michelle Rodriguez (seriously, does she turn up to all film and TV sets and bring her own costume – “it’s alright guys, I’ll just use the one from last time”.) Here’s an idea - sod the fancy 3D, try getting your characters’ dimensions up to two first.

Despite the transparent plot, Avatar manages to kick into enjoyment mode when the fighting begins. There is definitely excitement to be had by watching dragons attack helicopters in 3D and perfect graphics. Leads Sam Worthington (dim muscle with a cheeky grin) and Zoe Saldana are reasonably charming, and Cameron’s trademark penchant for having strong female leads is still apparent, and most welcome. The 3D works in places, adding depth to cockpits and landscapes, but hinders or distracts in others. The effects are breathtaking. But wrap up a bootleg copy of Pocahontas in pretty paper and it’s still a crappy copy underneath. Avatar is enjoyable, no doubt helping the film universe make further strides into jaw-dropping effects, but failing at the basics like plot and character. It’s fun but nothing more, and so ends the year with a CF0.

18th Nov 09 - 2012

I wasn’t there, but this is how I imagine the conversation went between Roland Emmerich (“RE”), and Roland Emmerich’s subconscious film-making mind (“SC”), when trying to decide on whether to make 2012:

RE: I quite fancy a period drama next.
SC: I think you should destroy the world again.
RE: Oh… all right then.

And so 2012 was born. Though he was cajoled into it, Emmerich seems to have decided that if he is going to destroy the world again (he really hates the world – see Independence Day and the Day After Tomorrow) he’s going to do it so much that there can no longer be another disaster film. It’s like everyone’s had a go at folding down a cardboard box to shove it in the bin, all with varying degrees of success, but Emmerich has stomped in, doused the box in petrol and set it alight. No one can even attempt to have a go now. The box is gone.

Well it’s sort of like that.

Anyway, the key ingredients to this sort of disaster flick are all there – an everyman trying to save his family (John Cusack), some hot British scientists on hand when explanations are needed, an American president (randomly being Danny Glover), a crazy man (Woody Harrelson), a scattering of token “foreign” people (it is the whole entire world that’s going bust this time after all), and a cute doggy. The action, when it kicks in, is giggle-inducing fun. Cusack driving away from a collapsing planet is probably the best action sequence you’ll see this year, and shot in such a way that it would be a crime not to convert it into some sort of simulator/3-D/coaster experience in Florida. The pure scale of everything is awesome, and you can almost feel Emmerich chuckling behind the camera as he smushes buildings, sticks two fingers to religion, and just generally causes chaos. Great fun.

Great fun for about 40 minutes, that is. Trouble is, 2012 is 158 minutes long. The usual padding – slow build up to mass destruction – is forgivable and necessary for the genre, but post-destruction events take a dull turn as the surviving humans board their getaway ships (and that’s sea-ship, not space-ship) and everything goes a bit Titanic. We’ve just seen the entire earth destroyed – some water in a cabin is suddenly a million times less interesting.

You then add in the typical problems with this sort of thing – our hero always managing to be on the brink of every new moment of chaos and managing to just avoid everything over and over again, the usual American way of saving the American world with occasional glances at how the rest of the planet is doing – oh yes, there goes another country, ah well – before back to who’s really important, and Cusack looks too bored with the role, his trademark sardonic pout clashing with the CGI pandemonium around him. Once you’ve added all that, 2012 starts to look a bit crap, really.

The highlights – uber destruction like you’ve never seen – are thrilling, fun and quite superb. It’s a pity this beast has become a bit too bloated, the airy pockets smothering the juicy good centre into a passable way to spend several hours. Go for DVD, skip to the mid 40 minutes, then discard. For the best scenes, 2012 gets a CF2. But the score is diluted to a disappointing CF-1. I’ll still be making friends with a pilot though, just in case…

11th Nov 09 - Up

Call me old fashioned, but I just don’t get this new fangled 3-D obsession in cinema nowadays. If I wanted things appearing to poke me in the face then I’d attach a pen to a spinning bicycle wheel and sit a few centimetres away from it with my eyes taped open. And I’m obviously not going to do that.

As a short-sighted glasses wearer I don’t need to wear an extra pair of specs on top, with a fuzzy bit at the top of my vision which neither glasses cover. Therefore in defiance of the future of cinema, I strode into a 2-D version of Up. And it just goes to show that 3-D is unnecessary, because even without the fancy gizmos, Up is simply marvellous.

With a plot obviously written while on magic mushrooms, Up is a joyous blend of childlike silliness and adult heart-wrenching sadness. The opening ten minutes managed to reduce me to tears with a montage, echoing Wall-E’s amazing knack of conveying deep emotion without using any dialogue. It features the crushingly cruel truth of the outcome to any long-term love, and deals with it in such a beautiful, mature manner that you’d be forgiven for thinking it wasn’t a child’s film at all. And then the balloons come out.

Anyone miffed by the sudden change in tone from cold hard truth to vibrant sugar-fuelled insanity should be branded an idiot fool – and I mean literally branded. On the forehead. A film about a man who attaches balloons to his house and flies away – an inescapable point given all posters feature a picture of said event – must surely hint that the plot is far removed from the realms of the possible. Just how far it takes you into crazy territory is surprising, but if you’re going along for the ride it becomes not only hugely enjoyable, but also absolutely hilarious and thrilling too.

Picking an old dude for the main character seems a bit of a stuffy move for Pixar – who the hell wants to watch old people in films anyway? All they do is shuffle and pee. But Pixar win again, because not only is it original to feature a geriatric hero, they also accomplish two genius things – one, an OAP fight scene that’s just gold, and two, the idea of small children coming out of this film and never seeing their Granddad in the same light again.

Never one to disappoint, Pixar have done it again with an original gem, scoring points for tackling such deep emotional issues and mixing them with some old fashioned childish nonsense. Funny, exciting, heart-warming – just beautifully enjoyable, Up storms up the CF point scale to reach the dizzying heights of a CF4. Highest scorer of the year? Cor blimey I believe it is. Up yours!

24th Oct 09 - Zombieland

Zombies are probably the second most popular dead things right now (second to vampires, overly exposed by Twi-shite, which I only hate because I’ve realised I’m now too old to understand the hype, and it’s an emo’s version of the superior Buffy).

After Shaun brought the hee hee to Zombhee, it was only a matter of time before Hollywood decided to step up to the play. And so we have Zombieland, a Zom-com set in a post-apocalypse world, where the zombies are fast and the survivors are few. Our narrator is Jesse Eisenberg, a white-fro nerd whose survival depends on cowardly but smart rules. He teams up with Woody Harrelson, a gun-toting lunatic with a knack for killing zombies. Life gets even more interesting when they stumble upon sisters Emma Stone (sultry, super and one to keep an eye on) and Abigail Breslin (the little one from Little Miss Sunshine).

The opening credits help to set the tone, with slow-mo gore spewed into camera lens set to heavy metal. Awesome stuff. The rest of the film doesn’t disappoint, with a heady mix of zombie chaos (what would happen if you fought zombies with fairground rides?) and American nerd jokes. Granted it lacks the more subtle, shall we say “British” humour of Shaun – this is certainly more wham-bam, in your face silliness. But being less than 90 minutes long means this is a flash of entertainment, fast-paced, thrilling and with the best use of a cameo for years (I won’t spoil it).

The cast are strong, Harrelson having a whale of a time as a redneck hero, while “the kids” hold their own, Eisenberg impossible not to compare to Michael Cera (even though I know he hates it) and the girls not just the token totty, although despite all the end of the world stuff they do manage to apply the makeup and keep the hair smoking hot.

With the strong duo of Z-Land and Shaun, there’s little scope for any more Zom-coms that could be successful, or more accurately, original (for we all know that the unoriginal shit-pile can still become successful due to the inherent stupidity of the majority of the human race). Zombieland proves there was still life in the undead and injects fresh life and fun into the genre, and for that it lopes in with a CF2. Dead funny. Ho ho.

10th Oct 09 - District 9

As Sting once wisely said: I’m an alien, I’m a legal alien. I’m an Englishman in New York.

What he could have said was: I’m an alien. I’m an illegal alien. I’m an insect-like thing in a shanty town in South Africa. Granted it’s not as catchy, but it does sum up District 9 quite nicely.

Sneaking up on the box office like a little sneaky alien, District 9 somehow blasted its way to the top of the charts, despite coming from a first-time director and featuring an unknown cast. Of course the fact that it’s good should mean it nabs a high place on the box office, but Joe Public aren’t always smart enough to flock to the best film, instead getting confused by bright piles of poo with a picture of the Wayan brothers pinned to it.

Newcomer Neill Blomkamp was down to direct the Halo adaptation, but after it was canned, producer Peter Jackson gave him a wad of money to make something else instead. Blomkamp drew on his childhood in South Africa to cleverly meld the real into the alien, having the outerspace visitors –“Prawns” – treated as lower class folk and relegated to live in shanty towns. By drawing on documentary and CCTV style footage, Blomkamp adds an extra dimension of realism to the familiar alien format. CGI aliens meld perfectly with the real world, with two singled out as our “hero” prawns who team up with a hapless government dude due to circumstances I won’t go into to avoid spoiling the gruesome surprises.

What you get is a sort of buddy-movie, mixed with Tsotsi, the alien-in-bar scenes from Star Wars, some first person shoot-em-up games and transformers. All sort of familiar, but done in such a neat way it’s simply marvellous. With no big-name stars it’s difficult to tell where the story will lead you, and there is a gritty and explosive streak of violence that will have you “ewwing” and “wooing” in equal measures. There’s also a lot of use of the excellent swear word “fook”, which you’ll be saying for days after seeing this film.

Unfortunately the film falters towards the end when it attempts to big-up the action and brings in some unnecessary transformer-eqsue action, diluting the smaller, indie feel to the flick. But still, this is a smart take on the alien genre, the docu-style bringing an element of realism to pixels such that you’ll really care what happens to them. Worthy of its box-office success, District 9 plumps up the points and scores a CF2. Fooking hell.

26th September 09 - Funny People

It’s called Funny People. It’s written and directed by funny people. It stars actors considered to be funny people. They play characters whose careers revolve around being funny people. Is the fact the film isn’t that funny down to an ironic title, or because they spent so long smugly thinking they were funny, they forgot to add any comedy to the script?

Let’s take the foot off the abuse accelerator for just one second and start with the positives though. Funny People features a solid cast full of likeable folk, and smart piece of casting with Adam Sandler as a well established comedian slightly twisted and delusional from his world, and Seth Rogen as a newcomer to the comedy scene. See what they did there? Yeah, it’s clever isn’t it. Or akin to having Julia Roberts disguise herself as Julia Roberts in suck-fest Ocean’s Twelve. Not sure.

Anyway, when Sandler finds out he has a life-threatening disease everything goes to pot, he questions his own life, tries to win back his lost love and employs young Rogen to be his gopher. That’s pretty much the plot, but sprinkled with snippets of stand-up routines and some smaller sub-plots. Choosing to drag 146 minutes out of the idea is an interesting decision. Or, as we in the film reviewing business call it – a mistake.

The film suffers due to two main problems – structure and character. Structure, because the plot rambles around on a directionless arc, stretched out by improvised scenes that lose the funny half way through. Character, because Sandler paints such a dislikeable figure that your empathy is totally dissolved, you don’t care if he succeeds in his mission of stealing back his love and you find very little to root for. Rogen is the usual – good, but starting to get familiar.

What’s extra strange is the incredibly sombre tone throughout the film. The main comedy comes through the stand-up routines each comedian shows, some of which are very funny, others are lost a little on a non-American audience. The rest of the film is at times actually quite depressing. With the odd structure and unexpected plot corners, this comes out as not just another Judd Apatow solid comedy nugget, but as a weird comedy/drama hybrid. Not a bad thing to mix the genres. Just odd to behold when expecting something else, and when it goes on for a wee bit too long.

The abuse accelerator got pressed again didn’t it? Well there are things to enjoy too. Leslie Mann is very likeable, there’s some fabulous dry humour from Jonah Hill and Jason Schwartzman, and some amusing cameos from a variety of celebrities including a very surreal exchange between Eminem and Ray Romano. Plus it’s refreshing to see some family-based drama erupting from the Apatow cannon instead of porn jokes.

In short: Funny People is a quite funny, but also a quite morose and soul-searching look at the world of comedians, or just basic humans who make certain life choices. It’s too long and needs tighter control of the pace and structure, but a brave move to turn out a dramatic comedy as opposed to another Superbad. Funny People gets a standard CF0, but only if you change your expectations. And make sure you go to the loo beforehand.

29th August 09 - Mesrine: Public Enemy No1

Taking off from where part one finished, Mesrine Public Enemy No 1 surpasses its recent Hollywood namesake (Mann’s Public Enemies, rated a poor CF-1 back in July). Our Mesrine is now a fully fledged criminal, but media-savvy and image conscious. Still robbing banks and escaping prison in style, this is a fatter, hairier Mesrine. A cheeky chappy, a charmer, wooing woman and the jury, just with a bigger belly.

The second part takes a different tone to the first, ditching the Goodfellas life story/relationship plod and going straight for the heist jugular, with some frantic shoot-outs. Seriously, autoglass would make a killing with the number of back windows shot out. Mesrine himself is like the French John Dillinger, or Mark Brandon “Chopper” Read (last week’s Eric Bana in a performance to be savoured). A criminal whose delusions of grandeur begin to make him more than just a robber. Mesrine, so annoying with lack of publicity during one prison stint, wrote his own autobiography, which then became the basis for the first of these two films.

Cassell is once again awesome. He piled on the pounds to shoot this part first, before downsizing to play the younger Mesrine in part one (they filmed events in reverse chronological order – clever, see) so this is essentially the first time he’s tackled this character. Only prejudice against subtitles will stop you from enjoying this performance. A childish, overblown, naïve and sly concoction, making a dangerous but almost lovable villain. Violence is sparingly shown, but when it hits it packs a wincing punch, particularly during Mesrine’s attack on a silly journalist.

The ending is built with skilful tension by Director Jean-Francois Richet. Though you know precisely what’s to come from watching part one, there is still an unnerving build up to Mesrine’s eventual bow-out, with a particular sadness about the doggy…

As a duo, Mesrine is a lengthy study of a fascinating character, who could easily have popped up in any Scorsese epic. His life is certainly diverse enough to warrant two films, although maybe could have summarised various heists into a handy montage. Part one felt more of a coming of age story, compared to part two as a straight up heist/downfall pic, the two cramming in every major French actor known to all us non-French folk. Though some scenes may feel familiar to anyone who’s seen an organised crime/criminal based film, Mesrine is still an absorbing, thrilling piece, made brilliant by Cassell’s performance. Mesrine: Public Enemy No 1 scores a CF1, a point lower than the former film probably due to increased expectations. Still, a worthy duo well worth a watch.

26th August 09 - The Time Traveler's Wife

You won’t catch me willingly watching a “romance” film very often. Particularly one whose trailer featured soft lighting and a seemingly pobby plot. But Time Traveler’s Wife (TTW) happens to be a fabulous book. A traditional romance with a sci-fi twist, shades of darkness bold enough to provoke tears even when reading, and characters who are fully developed. It is a genius concept – a man who involuntarily time travels throughout his life, with resulting interactions with his wife throughout hers. An idea too genius to miss in film world. But can Mr film world match the book?

Well, it’s the age old problem – how do you match all the intricacies of a full blown novel with a 120 minute piece of film? The answer is mostly: you can’t. Very few films come close to accomplishing such feats, but that doesn’t mean you can’t create a great film in the process. The film has solid foundations on which to settle, tackling a tricky criss-cross time structure with a smart, simplified, streamlined approach. Anything else would have confused the average cinema pleb.

Eric Bana takes the lead as the time traveller, dashing but quiet, somewhat understated but encapsulating my idea of Henry from the book. Rachel McAdams is “the wife” Claire, suitably sassy and doe-eyed but a tad skeletal for my liking. The crux of the story is there, certainly with enough oomph to build emotions that instil weird leaking eye effects. Not sure what that’s all about. And the pitfalls and complexities of Henry’s time travel add a meaty layer to an otherwise basic love story.

But – and of course there’s a but – the film only served as a reminder of how good the book is. Fleeting scenes spark memories of whole chapters, incidents lightly touched upon remind you of much grander events. The leaky eye effect only triggers with the knowledge of what’s to come. Without such a solid book behind it, is this film really worth much?

The major trouble is, though this is a good adaptation, the book is so deep and complex, anything but feels somewhat lacking. In particular the choice to avoid certain areas – Claire’s entire family backstory, making her another atypical Hollywood woman whose only function is to see how many vertebrae she can show in the obligatory post-sex shot (go on – count them!), and a rather major medical consequence is missed out, which sparked the start of the general feeling of doom that clouds the last part of the book. Without these, the film begins to feel like a diluted version of the book. A diet novel. A novel-zero. Tastes like the real thing, but ultimately is a shitter version.

My non-novel reader informants tell me the film is still enjoyable without the novel background, but my novel-reader comrade concurs that though the film is reasonable, there is still a feeling of disappointment, particularly considering the film avoids the cinematic and beautiful ending.

So, a difficult one to grade. On the one hand, a unique take on the romance genre, dragging it into complex time travel paradoxes and no doubt boggling the minds of the usual audience for romance trite. On the other this is a cop-out adaptation of a dark book, side-stepping any unpleasantries for a smooth-ish ride. Was the enjoyment and emotion purely an echo of memories from reading the novel, rather than the film itself? Not sure. But despite the disappointment, it was already obvious that a film couldn’t match the book and needed to stand on its own. As such, TTW gets a recommendation for being something different for non-readers, and an extra point for grasping some aspect of what made the book so good. But it can’t climb any higher. The novel itself? CF4. The film: CF1

22nd August 09 - Inglorious Basterds

Let’s face it. After Pulp Fiction, Tarantino’s work has slowly declined in popularity and quality. It was only natural, given the extent of Reservoir’s impact and Pulp’s cult status. Hit a career high first and you’ve only got a downwards slump ever after (unless you have time out and do a come-back). But despite this, his name is still big enough that most people - even the dim-witted general public - refer to Inglorious Basterds as “the new Tarantino one”, a feat that is rarely accomplished by directors, no matter how great they may be.

Inglorious has been floating round the Tarantino ideas pile for a while, even before he started Kill Bill, though it was weird to think of him producing a typical WW2 flick. Good job he hasn’t then. Inglorious is simply Tarantino does the 1940s, with some pre-drawn Hilter-shaped characters thrown in. The setting may be different, but we still have multiple plots, a chapter structure, smooth talking cool dudes, graphic violence and coincidences bringing everything together.

The multiple plots cover a girl with a grudge (a pretty deserved grudge really), a team of American Jews on a mission to kill Nazis (the Inglorious Basterds), and a handful of players from all sides. Brad Pitt’s lead Basterd is a drawling eccentric, a walk-in-the-park for Pitt whose presence doesn’t add the same as, say, Willis, Travlota and Sammy L did in the past. But it’s the non-Americans who steal the show. French actress Melanie Laurent plays grudge girl with finesse and is immediately likeable. And the prize for smooth talking cool dude goes to Austrian born Christoph Waltz, who plays the chief Jew-hunter (to put it bluntly) and emits such smooth intelligence and icy danger it’s both captivating and terrifying to watch.

Tarantino certainly knows how to create tension, each chapter building finger twisting apprehension before exploding into another bout of ultra-violent chaos. You will care how things turn out, and as it’s Tarantino there are of course some surprises on the way.

But the film isn’t quite as clever as it tries to appear, the plots not smartly intertwined, more occasionally crossing. The Basterds themselves feel somewhat superfluous and at times a little bit silly (the introduction of Eli Roth – director of Hostel – is a build up to an “errr..?” moment). There are probably hundreds of clever references to films that only Tarantino has seen, and of course references to his own films, reinforcing my belief that sooner or later he will remake one of his own, sparking an endless circle of remakes of the same film, by the same person, with increasing numbers of in-jokes, until a reality vortex is created that will destroy the world. That’s just my theory, anyway.

Basterds isn’t the huge career come-back that will put Tarantino back on his once held cult-King podium, but it is a well crafted, well acted thriller with some savage black comedy thrown in. A point just for Christoph Waltz’s performance, Inglorious Basterds gets a CF1.

12th August 09 - Mesrine: Killer Instinct

Dubbed “the French Scarface”, Mesrine is the true story of a notorious French chappy, famed for bank robbing, kidnapping, prison breaks and being public enemy number one. Split across two films, the first, “Killer Instinct”, features life before the esteemed title of Public Enemy, and focuses on Mesrine’s back story. He’s a right charmer, following a stint in the army to woo ladies, make money on the side, and slowly seep into a life of organised crime with a few forays into the straight life inbetween.

The shining glory of this is lead Vincent Cassel (who’s popped up in good films like Eastern Promises, and shite films like Ocean’s Twelve). Remarkably gorgeous despite odd features, Cassel oozes cheeky charm and spikes it with flashes of insane violence to create a character who is likeable and frightening at the same time. My knowledge of French criminals is sparse, and to avoid spoiling the second instalment I have restrained my research into Jacques Mesrine, although note with curiosity that the film is based on a book that he himself wrote. Whether he twisted true events to be more exciting, or to portray him as a sexy devil, is unknown at present, and I’m certainly looking forward to finding out more once I’ve completed the film duo.

The film is in Goodfellas territory, with linear story telling, elongated running time and the highs and lows of the life of crime, but melds in some brutal prison time (they don’t make prisons like they used to) and some rather exciting if not a little silly gun battles. But with the excellence of Cassel in front of the camera, and the sparky direction of Jean-Francois Richet steering the show, Mesrine erupts as a fresh, thrilling piece.

The decision to split the film into two is one I can only judge after catching the second part (released in a couple of weeks), as is the extent to which we explore Mesrine’s psyche, which was covered in some depths in this instalment but has definite room for further exposition. But as a standalone piece, Mesrine: Killer Instinct is engaging, exciting and well-paced enough to climb to a CF2. Bring on the second part, is all I can say.

5th August 09 - Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

After my lacklustre response to the previous Potter (what number are we on now anyway? Six? Five? Two hundred?) I approached this new instalment with a “meh” attitude. I am a rare non-reader of the Potster, but I knew this was the one where “someone” dies (sorry to spoil it for non-readers of the book… but “someone” dies. There. And no, sadly it’s not Potter) so was mildly curious as to how.

As a non-reader, wading through these films is like walking into the sea with an inflatable around your waist. It gets harder the further you go and you never get to appreciate the depths of the story because you only ever see the surface. The longer the book, the less sense the films make. From what I can make of it, The Half Blood Prince is when everyone’s trying to bone everyone else, then Potter and Dumbledore go on a random quest to fight a group of gollums, before a wet flannel finale and an open ended finish.

As such, there are some amusing teenage romance moments, some slightly creepy bits, and a slight advancement on the plot. At least something actually happens in this one, compared to the previous film (Potter: the moody years) but it very much feels like a run up to the final flick, which has been split into two in order to make more money - sorry – I mean because the book is too long.

Acting-wise this is still painfully patchy, Radcliffe’s face sometimes so blank it looks CGI’d. And because of the gaps in the plot most events seem disjointed or unremarkable, or often just plain stupid (“hey Harry, let’s go to this random place for no reason and put you in peril. Again.”) But it pulls together just enough to hold your attention (saggy middle aside) and the likeable Grint and Watson are at least fun to watch, even if their characters don’t do anything at all.

If you haven’t read the books then I would rate this at CF-1. As a stand alone film it is disjointed and unclear. My book-reading companion appeared to enjoy it more, however, so I suspect a more enthusiastic recommendation would go out to those immersed in the Potter world already. But then, if you’ve read the books you’ll probably see it regardless of what I say, like a lamb going to cinema slaughter. So I’m sticking with CF-1. Up yours people who read Potter! Up yours!